The Retooled FO

Freshwater on Bob Burney Transcript

2010-01-21T15:31:00.001-08:00

Bob Burney Live on WRFD June 10 - John Freshwater Interview Part 1 of 4

BB: - Bob Burney of Bob Burney Live radio show on WRFD
JF: - John Freshwater, suspended 8th-grade science teacher in Mt. Vernon, OH
DM: - Don Matolyak, Freshwater's pastor at Trinity Worship Center in Mt. Vernon
KH: - Kelly Hamilton, Freshwater's attorney
ANN: - Announcers on WRFD

BB: Welcome back to Bob Burney live and this is Friday, which means usually it's open phones, but not this segment. Unless you have been living in a cave for the last 12, 18 months I'm sure you have heard the name John Freshwater. John Freshwater is the 8th-grade science teacher that made national news, not by his own choice by any means, for daring to have a Bible on his desk, that began the controversy.

He is embroiled in a legal battle now for his job, for his livelihood. And I have wanted to have john on the air for a long, long time but, well, his legal assistance has encouraged him not to until now, and they feel it's time for John to tell his story, and we are delighted that they are doing it here today on Bob Burney Live.

In the studio with me is John Freshwater, Don Matolyak his pastor and has been his, well, unofficial and official spokesman and Kelly Hamilton who is his lead attorney. Gentlemen, welcome.

DM: Thanks Bob

JF: Thank you, Bob

BB: Now, John, I've met you before, but I'm a little surprised, the horns are gone. I thought you had horns, I thought you had fangs, you know John, you seem almost normal.

JF: I'm glad you see it that way Bob.

BB: John, walk us through how all of this started. I want to know the facts from you. How did all of this mess begin? And I want to start by saying John, I have known a lot of people through the years who have forced the issue of a lawsuit, termination of employment just so they could get their face on the news and their, their voice on radio and get their name in the headlines. I know that's not true with you. Take us back. How long have you been teaching in the school district, and then what is the genesis of this mess that you're embroiled in right now?

JF: First of all Bob, thanks for allowing me here to speak today, I appreciate that. I've been teaching for 24 years and the, 21 of those years're in, in Mt. Vernon ohio, and three of those years was out in Idaho, and I've been teaching abroad, one year I taught abroad over in China, did some teaching over in Romania, on a, in a summer one time I was over there doing a little teaching. And sure, yeah, I gotta bring my wife and my kids into this a little bit. My wife's name's Nancy and I've got three kids Luke, Sarah and Jordan Freshwater and Luke's, he spent a year there at West Point and now he's at Cedarville and my daughter's, she's a swimmer there at the Naval Academy, she's going also the military route, and then I've got my daughter Jordan, she's, she's going to be a sophomore this year in, in school there at the Mt. Vernon High School.

Started, I believe, 20, in 2003. At that time President Bush did No Child Left Behind policy came out and Santorium[sic] out of Pennsylvania senator there he attached to No Child Left Behind policy the, the, to critically analyze evolution. I, I was studying it very closely through the years I'm kind of watching the process of all this and at that time I brought a proposal to the school board to critically analyze evolution. And I followed the Administration's steps that they wanted me to follow and I went to the science, science committee and then I, it did - didn't fly there and so I asked the principal at that time his name was Mr. Kuhns and he said, well, take it to the school board, so I proceeded to go to the school board, that would be my next step.

BB: So this was following the guidelines of federal legislation.

JF: Yes, yes, yes.

BB: Okay. Alright.

JF: And it - we worked through the process, it took two, three months and was very, it was very outspoken then. It was, a lot of people showing up at the meetings, hundreds were showing up there, and giving their

DM: Support of you, John.

JF: Thanks, pastor. In support there was a, it was, it ended up not passing, and all I wanted to do was critically analyze evolution. And I was tagged then, I believe, and let's use the word that they used on me, branded, that was the word that they you know they attached onto me, I'll use it, I was branded and at that time and,

BB: Even though, even though I don't want, and we'll back up because I want to make sure this is clear, you were asking the school board to follow federal guidelines in the No Child Left Behind legislation

JF: Yes, Mmm hmm.

BB: Okay

JF: At that time it was a 10th grade standard to critically analyze evolution in biology at the 10th grade and I was trying to bring it down to the lower grades and be able to critically analyze evolution. And at that time there was some letters to the editor some different things out there and they started branding me some religious freak, you know, they sort of attaching onto me oh he's trying to teach creationism, he's trying to teach intelligent design, and no I don't teach creationism, I don't teach intelligent design, just let's examine evolution, and let's look at evolution and what's out there, what, what are the facts out there with evolution, what does the scientist, dig em up, and let's examine them, let's use the scientific method.

So that, that was the beginning of it, and April 16th of 2008, new administration and things changed, and they asked me to remove my Bible from my desk. And after discussion with my family and much prayer, we chose - the Bible is gonna stay on my desk and that's when the battle enlarged after that. But it was all about the Bible on the desk.

BB: Now, okay, John, did you, did you have devotions from your Bible with the children, in your students?

JF: No no no

BB: You didn't, did you read your Bible to the students.

JF: No, no I did not.

BB: Did you teach from the Bible to your students?

JF: No, no, this is a science class.

BB: Okay, so the Bible was simply on the corner of your desk. And why was it there then? If you were not teaching from it, if you were not using it for the students, why was it there?

JF: Real simple - it's my inspiration. Just like you would have, I'm sure Bob, you have Bibles around your house and so forth. It's my inspiration. l've always had it with me, I've had some unusual jobs, such as fighting forest fires, smokejumping, and traveling in China, Romania, different things have been around and, i have it with me. It's, it's, it, it's me. It's my inspiration. Simple as that. And some, some times, I asked my previous students and they don't even notice that it was even there. My desk is, it's a mess.

DM: Yes, it is.

BB: Well, you have to see my desk. Do you know if any of these students were offended? Is, the reason, do you under, do you know the reason, why the school board asked you to remove the bible from your desk?

JF: That's a great question, Bob, that's a,

BB: Is it documented that students were offended and came to the school board and said, I've got a religious fanatic teacher who's got this Bible on his desk, and I'm offended?

JF: I have never heard that from any of my sudents in the 24 years I've been teaching, I've never had anybody come up to me, a parent or anybody come up to me,

BB: So what was the reasoning that the school board gave you for asking you to remove the Bible?

JF: I believe that - different administration. Things changed. Things changed, and I think it was offensive to some of the administration.

BB: Alright, so in your opinion that's kind of the beginning of the, of the end, you refused to remove the Bible. Alright, in the time frame here, you have been accused, the big thing that's caught all the media attention, that Bill O'Reilly flipped out, Geraldo Rivera flipped out, and a lot of the national news reporters flipped out, is this religious fanatic in Mt. Vernon Ohio actually branded, the Columbus Dispatch used that word branded, over and over and over again, as well as a lot of the other national news sources, that you actually branded, and John, you know, I'm a city kid from Los Angeles, but I lived on my grandpa's farm in the summers and i know what branding is, and you were accused of branding, burning a cross in one of your student's arms, intentionally in the shape of a cross in order to brand him with your religious convictions. I've got to ask you the question first. Did you burn a cross in a kid's arm?

JF: No, no, no. We've, I've said that, from the beginning, I have not branded anybody, I didn't brand myself, I've never branded myself, I wouldn't brand my kids, I wouldn't brand any student. I've never branded anybody. This,

BB: You were doing a science experiment.

JF: Right.

BB: And the kids volunteered?

JF: Yes. This science experiment, using the Tesla coil, and I'm not going to go into all the aspects of the Tesla coil, but there's about five, I can think of five or six teachers there at the building now, that have used the Tesla coil same, same method I've used it, and I've talked to them they've been on the witness chair and not one of them ever said they've had a complaint about the Tesla coil, and used it. So, I've never had a complaint to this point about the Tesla coil. So, we have, we have,

BB: Unequivocally, categorically, you did not brand a child with a cross?

JF: No, i did not brand a child with a cross.

BB: Alright. The timeline. When did this supposed branding/burning take place in the timeline of asking you to remove the Bible from your desk?

JF: It took place in December of 2007 when that incident took place

BB: Which incident, the Bible or the Tesla coil?

JF: Tesla coil

BB: The Tesla coil, December 2007.

JF: Yes. And I was in the office, they went down and talked to the office about it, at that, my principal at that time, Mr. White. And we discussed it and it was, I was told that it wasn't going in your personal file, it was a done deal.

BB: Mmkay.

JF: And April, 2008, it came back out, it surfaced again.

BB: Okay, but when was the asking, the request to take the Bible off your desk, chronologically?

JF: April 16, so about five months later, April 16 when I was told to take the Bible off my desk.

KH: You'd been given a letter prior to that, John, and that, but, then on April 16 you said that was the date I will not take my Bible off my desk.

BB: Alright, I've got to take a break, in fact, I'm about two minutes, two minutes late. We're here with John Freshwater, Don Matolyak his pastor, and Kelly Hamilton his attorney. And, you folks, listen, you have heard so much; this is an opportunity to hear the truth. And, yes we will entertain your phone calls. Obviously, there will be some things because of pending litigation they will not be able to discuss, but 877-BOB-LIVE.

ANN: Janet Partial's America: Covering America and the World. Weekdays from 9 to midnight on The Word at WRFD.com.

BB: Welcome back to Bob Burney Live. Normally, this would be Open Phone Friday, but well, we've made an, an exception today for a very good reason. John Freshwater, the embattled eight-grade, eighth-grade science teacher from Mt. Vernon, is live in the studio along with his pastor and his attorney. And gentlemen, again, it is great to have you back.

John, lets continue the discussion, I asked you did you ever brand a cross in a child's arm and you said, unequivocally, no. You, you have been a teacher for 21 years in the Mt. Vernon schools, correct?

JF: Yes.

BB: Alright. Have you ever been disciplined for anything in those 21 years?

JF: No. Bob, my, my personal file, about 20, 250 pages of it when I looked, I, I, to be honest with you, I had never looked at it before till last year April, it's the first time I really looked at my file, and, I haven't had any need to, because I knew what was in there, and all my evaluations that I've received from my principals over the years, and multiple principals, I've received copies of that and they were always excellent, very well done, and they were, always were very positive that I was on the right track,

BB: Yeah.

JF: And once, and the, the whole aspect of now with all of my personal file being so, so good and nothing wrong with it and then all of a sudden this little bleep comes along here, and me, what makes sense, sometimes I have, sometimes I have to step back and say, whoa, what makes sense here?

BB: But John, you were voted, declared Teacher of the Year, correct?

JF: Yeah, it's a distinguished award and there was,

BB: And when was that?

JF: Uh that was at 2000 and, I think it was at 2006 and 2, year 2000, yeah.

BB: 2006-7.

JF: Yeah

BB: Okay, 2006-7. Alright. All of this happened 2007-8.

JF: Yes.

BB: So the year before all of this happened you were the Teacher of the Year. How do you become Teacher of the Year? Who makes that decision?

JF: By the administration. The principal submits it, and the superintendent,

BB: No wait. No, let me interrupt, let me get this straight, John. So the year before all of this came up, you were fired, you were declared to be insubordinate, who knows what all else, the year before that, you were the Teacher of the Year.

JF: Yes.

BB: And you have 21 years of an exemplary record. No discipline whatsoever, and all of a sudden, after 21 years, you become a wild-eyed religious fanatic that has to be fired. There is something a little weird, there, John.

JF: Doesn't make much sense.

BB: There is something a little strange there.

Now, I've got to ask this no more details about, you know, what's going on, but I've got to ask you, how's your family doing? This has got to be really hard on your, on your wife and two of your kids are gone out of the house, but, but, y'all hurt. How're, how are they doing?

JF: You know what? There's obviously been some struggles, there's no question. My wife and I and my daughter that is home, we're doing well. But it hasn't been easy. We've come, there have been some things that've taken place physically, that has happened with my wife also with myself. And we're working through it. We are working through it and, we're going, we're going to be fine. We're going to be fine. With my, with my faith I believe so strongly that i'm in good hands.

BB: Yeah, I, and I don't know you well, John. We've met two or three times, we've talked on the phone. But I perceive that you're a very private person.

JF: You know what? If I had my rathers, yeah, I would like to just stay at home on my farm, and work on my Christmas trees,

BB: So,

JF: Listen to talk radio,

BB: Thank you, and what talk radio would you be listening to?

JF: 880!

BB: Thank you. Thank you. And again I want to stress this, because people don't know you. This is not something you sought, this is not something that you desired, this is not, this not something that's a part of your nature, this is exactly the opposite of what appeals to you. And this has got to have been very difficult for you. Being in the headlines, being in the national news, and for, and rightfully so, and I understand it, but you were told don't talk, don't talk! And again, i understand that. But my goodness, when so many mean, nasty things are being said about you, tell me what that was like, John, not being able to even speak when all of these things are being, being broadcast, not only locally, but nat- and around the world.

JF: Right, that, very difficult. It is, and even today it's still difficult. There's, I am bonded in my attorney, I really am, I, we have, we've become very, very close friends it's absolutely amazing, and I, I trust him, and what he tells me, I, that's what I do and if he says don't be speaking, don't be speaking. So it, we're talking, it's been over a year. And we're starting to speak out some, you know what? Just in the paper this past week,

BB: Oh wait a minute, the phone's ringing, it's Bill O'Reilly.

JF: (Laughter)

BB: John, don't. Don't, don't! And by all means, don't go on "the View!"

Ah, we gotta take a break, John.

JF: thank you, Bob.

BB: John Freshwater is here, and if you have questions or comments, maybe you just want to encourage this godly man who has been through so much, primarily because of his faith. Our number is 877-BOB-LIVE. 877-262-5483.

ANN: It's Bob Burney Live, only it's not live! Catch the Bob Burney Rewind weekday mornings from 3 to 6 on the Word at WRFD.com

End of part 1 of 4

This is an unofficial transcript from the mp3 audio files at

http://www.home.WRFD.com/WRFDInsiderPage.htm

by Marion Delgado July 12 and 13, 2009

Bob Burney Live on WRFD June 10 - John Freshwater Interview Part 2 of 4

BB: - Bob Burney of Bob Burney Live radio show on WRFD
JF: - John Freshwater, suspended 8th-grade science teacher in Mt. Vernon, OH
DM: - Don Matolyak, Freshwater's pastor at Trinity Worship Center in Mt. Vernon
KH: - Kelly Hamilton, Freshwater's attorney
ANN: - Announcers on WRFD
JB: Joy in Westerville, Bob Burney's wife.

ANN: The Word 880 WRFD streaming live 24 hours a day at WRFD.com!

BB: Well you've heard so much about him in the news. John Freshwater, eight-grade science teacher in Mt. Vernon, Ohio. Finally, we are able to hear John's side of the story, which by the is quite different than what you have read in your local newspaper or even on the, in the national news.

John, you'll have to forgive me we got a little goofy there before the last break I was asking you how this has been for you and your family, and you were starting to get in some serious things and sharing your own personal heart of this struggle, this battle, for you. What's it been like for you going through this?

JF: Yeah, like i mentioned this in the last section that, I, I do have a very strong faith, Bob. And I rely on that. Simple, just as simple as that. Its, that's, that's where i stand. And,

BB: Doesn't, doesn't mean you have not gotten very discouraged.

JF: Oh. Oh, yeah, I mean, it's a roller-coaster ride there's no doubt.

BB: Been through some valleys.

JF: Yes, yes.

BB: Where are you, now, you are, are you officially fired?

JF: No. I am, and that's been in the paper that I am. I'm suspended without pay as of last year in June.

BB: So did the school board vote to fire you, and that firing is pending the employment hearing, is that technically what's going on?

JF: That's correct.

BB: Okay, so currently you are suspended without pay.

JF: Yes

BB: Okay. Kelly, I'm going to have to ask you, Kelly Hamilton is here in, and Kelly is John's attorney. This, this case is a little unique in Ohio, isn't it?

KH: It is an exceptionally,

BB: You're gonna have to get real close. There you go.

KH: It's an exceptionally unique case, Bob. We've done a lot of legal research. There's not another case quite like the one here involving John. In this situation, even the most recent ruling, by the Common Pleas Court judge there, in Knox County, wasn't necessarily a surprise, but it certainly was a disappointment. Essentially, what we have asked is that the school board issue subpoenas to people we want to have testify at the employment hearing. We have had every subpoena honored, up until we subpoenaed two members of the school board in some of the materials that they would have kept notes on.

BB: Wait, now, aren't these basically the accusers?

KH: Absolutely. Not only is John asking to face his accusers, but these two particular school board members, they were involved in this situation well before any investigation took place. And because of that, there's some information that we believe that they have. We have asked that they be subpoenaed, but the school board took the unusual step of taking a look at the subpoenas that we issued and then quashing them. There's no legal reason for it, there's no legal basis for it, there's no reason that they're allowed to do that, but they went ahead and they no, we're just not going to issue subpoenas to ourself. So then we, John, had to file an application, with the Common Pleas Court, pay another $300, to ask the Common Pleas Court to enforce Ohio Revised Code. And the court says you know what, because the subpoenas were never issued, we, the court, do not have jurisdiction. So at this point, I just got done explaining to John and Nancy today, how the different options are that we can proceed. One of them is of course to appeal the Common Pleas Court ruling. We anticipate doing that. Another one is to file a mandeamus action, and then, quite frankly, there's two federal lawsuits going on, and there's a lawsuit by John against the school board. By the time we finally resume hearings again, I think that we're probably going to be a few months away as we wait for this appeal of, of the Common Pleas Court's decision, as we wait for that to be heard.

BB: Aren't, this is employment hearing, right?

KH: Correct.

BB: That's going on right now, that's the technical term, an employment hearing.

KH: Yes, sir.

BB: As provided by law.

KH: Correct.

BB: Isn't it extremely unusal that an employment hearing would drag out this long?

KH: It's very, very unusal. We've had over 20 days of trial. There aren't many attorneys that have a trial to go a week. We've had over 20 days of trial trying to get just answers, all we're trying to get to is the truth. I find it very ironic that we're trying to get to the truth, and the school board is quashing subpoenas that essentially say you know what, we weren't interested in the truth to begin with, that's why we had this one-sided, predetermined investigation, where John wasn't even asked certain questions, where witnesses weren't even interviewed, witnesses that John actually identified, and these people were not even interviewed. Conclusions were made, and we believe that John has been defamed not only by the school board, by the investigators,

BB: Sure.

KH: But by the, the school board's attorney who was involved in crafting this particular investigative report. This is a very unique case and that's part of the reason it's taken so long. Also keep in mind, John has had the benefit of my legal counsel, and along the way we've been able to get some pro bono help from a few other attorneys but only for very specific issues. On the other side, there's 12 different attorneys, and there's about to get a few more because of the number of people that we had to file suit against back in June of this year.

BB: Talk about David and Goliath.

KH: Oh.

BB: I mean, seriously. This is, This is David and Goliath. And Pastor Don, Don Matolyak, has gotten very involved in this as John's pastor. What is the cost of, of the school board, currently? How much has the school board of Mt. Vernon spent so far trying to fire one employee that was Teacher of the Year before they tried to fire him. With 250 pages in his employee file with absolutely nothing negative.

DM: They have spent $308,000 of my taxpayered money, and this is not money that's going to be reimbursed from an insurance company, this is money that should have gone to take care of teachers and provide things for our students, but instead they've spent over $308,000.

BB: $308,000. How do you, how do you spend $308,000?

DM: I don't know, but I do know that the, the school board's attorney has a real good cash cow here, and milking the district for this money, but when he does come to town, I'm sure that's all on the clock, and he stays in the largest room in the hotel and eats in the best restaurants, and that's all on my dime, and so, I mean but the question's been raised over and over is, why is this dragging out so long, well, here's the thing, I don't think that that attorney has any a desire to bring this to a rapid conclusion. He's getting paid for it.

BB: $308,000. John, is that more than you made in a year? Is that a little more than your yearly salary?

JF: Just a little bit!

BB: Yeah, that's what I thought. My goodness.

Our telephone number is 877-BOB-LIVE get on the phone call someone because you've heard about the John Freshwater case. Today, you're hearing the truth.
877-BOB-LIVE. We'd love to have your phone calls. Questions, comments as well. We'll return.

ANN: The Word. 880 WRFD

BB: We're talking today with John Freshwater. Eighth-grade science teacher from Mt. Vernon, Ohio. Who has been in the fight of his life for over a year now. Suspended without pay, had all kinds of accusations made against him, but gentlemen, all three of you if you want to jump in on this, I, you know, is this still primarily about the Bible on the desk?

DM: Yes. Absolutely, it's about the Bible on the desk. And they've had a lot of peripheral things,

BB: This is Don Matolyak, John's pastor

DM: There are a lot of peripheral things that have come out, but the main issue is still, you know, this teacher being permitted to have his personal Bible on his desk. So, we've said that all along, and we still stand on that.

BB: Alright. Now, several teachers, I don't know how many, but several teachers, have put Bibles on their desk in Mt. Vernon to support you, John. Have they not?

JF: They, no. what, you, they put 'em on, they were on already.

BB: Okay.

JF: It's not just they, just didn't put em on then, they had Bibles on their desk. And so,

BB: Did any of them get letters to remove their Bibles from their desk?

JF: You know what, there was a little battle with one, but no. Mean, this is much after the fact, but no, they did not receive letters to remove their Bibles. I was the only one.

KH: And actually, what we have to make certain that we understand here is that they only thought John was, this school board administration thought John was the only one that had a Bible. Then all of a sudden they found out that there were more bibles there. We have people that will testify that the school board president knew those Bibles were there, and he knew those were there in April, May and June.

BB: But singled out, singled out John.

KH: Singled out John, and then, it's very remarkable and I just can't understand the logic of what's transpired on the administration's side, but in March there was a teacher that testified that she in fact had a Bible on her desk along with Bible verses and all kinds of things. The next week after spring break when she came back to school she had a letter telling her to take the Bible and all the other anything that could be construed as religious or biblical, to remove that from her work area. She did. She was also told at that point in time specifically by the superintendent and by the principal if you don't like this then we want you to file the grievance process. Recognize this. John Freshwater was never given that kind of opportunity. He wasn't even in the union. He didn't even know that there was a grievance process, he was just told, this is the way it is, and if you don't like it then, too bad. That teacher, that female teacher, about two and a half to three weeks later received another letter, from the school, that said that you know what, there was a misunderstanding. You can keep your Bible on your desk. So we can't figure out exactly what is going on in this little town and at this school. Because some teachers can keep their Bibles on their desk, some can't.

BB: Well, John maybe the letter telling you that there was just a misunderstanding got lost in the mail.

JF: Yeah, we're still looking. Haven't found it yet.

BB: Alright John, let's deal with some of the other specific accusations. The big one was the branding. I asked you did you ever brand a cross in a student's arm, and your answer was

JF: No.

BB: Did you teach creationism at any time in your class.

JF: No. I don't teach creationism or intelligent design, i teach evolution. With the, you know, creation and intelligent design, both those would be, they're not scientific, that would fall under the base faith. You know based on faith. i teach critically, and I teach evolution, I study evolution. And that's one of my standards, eighth grade standards.

BB: Alright. Now, let's also straighten something out, because if I remember, and this is just my memory, it was released in the newspaper today that one of the teachers after you and in 9th grade, 10th grade, said we had to re-teach john's students about evolution. We had to constantly reteach Mr. Freshwater's students about evolution. But in reality, your students scored higher on the state science test than any other students. Is that, am I, did I get that story right?

JF: Yes, I, and, be honest I am proud of that. My students stepped up to bat on that. They came through and they scored very high, passing

BB: On the Ohio State Science Standards.

JF: The OAT standards, yes, which is what is driven, that's what drives teachers today

BB: So the newspapers reported that your students didn't learn evolution, they were taught creationism, they had to be retaught after they left your class, but the truth is, and you can prove this, correct? Can you prove this?

KH: Absolutely prove it, and what we can prove is empirical. It is, the proof is in the empirical results. 89% of John's students passed the Life Science portions of the Ohio Achievement Test. Not a single other teacher in the Mt. Vernon city school system at that grade level or at any other grade level had a higher success rate than what John did. In fact John's students, even though despite the fact that he had the most students that have special needs, special education plans, etc., John's students achieved a higher grade collectively than all the other grades. Bob, what's so especially important about that is that, if John was confusing kids with creationism and intelligent design or anything else non-evolutionary or, more importantly, not related to the standards, then his students would not have been able to decipher and prevail as well as they did.

BB: You know, the more I learn about this case, the more I shake my head and say, why are we here? I mean seriously, why are, why are we here? I don't get it. I really don't get it. We'l be back with more Bob Burney Live. Our number, 877-BOB-LIVE.

ANN: Call Bob now at 1-877-BOB-LIVE. This is Bob Burney Live.

BB: This is Bob Burney live, and we've been talking with John Freshwater, eighth-grade science teacher, who is suspended without pay because he had a Bible on the corner of his desk and refused to remove it. School board has spent over $300,000 trying to get rid of this good man.

Let's go to the phones, and we've got Joy in Westerville. You're on Bob Burney Live. Welcome!

JB: Hi, this is Joy.

BB: Well, this sounds like my Joy!

JB: It is your Joy.

BB: Ah.

JB: But, I don't want to take up a lot of time, but, I just want to tell you how thrilling it has been to listen to the program today with Mr. Freshwater because I'm so thankful for these three men that are standing true and standing firm and, and taking a stand. The rest of us can have these freedoms as well, and I know they've paid a price for that and I just want to say thank you!

JF: Thank you, thank you, Joy, I appreciate that.

JB: Yeah, and I appreciate Pastor Smith being a support,

DM: that's our little inside joke.

BB: That's a private joke between Don Matolyak and my wife Joy, 'cause nobody can pronounce Matolyak so she just calls him Smith.

JB: Yeah, and I appreciate Pastor Smith being a support to the family and I appreciate attorney Kelly for staying and staying with this case, and I want to tell you, John, I don't know, I hope that you understand what I'm saying. Every morning when I wake up, I go to uncover my parakeet 'cause I cover him up every night, so I go over and I uncover him every morning and I check his food and I check, you know, everything about him and then look at his water, and I say, oh, do you need some fresh water? And when I say fresh water, God clicks it in my mind and says, oh, Mr. Freshwater, make sure you say a prayer for mr. Freshwater today.

JF: Thank you.

BB: John, you're for the birds, I guess.

JF: thanks

JB: Yeah every day, every day I say a prayer for Mr. Freshwater because, you know, I am reminded of him. And I know that God has used that.

BB: Thanks. Thanks, hon. I don't want to cut off my own wife, but we have to take a break. 877-BOB-LIVE. We'll return.

Bob Burney Live on WRFD June 10 - John Freshwater Interview Part 3 of 4

BB: - Bob Burney of Bob Burney Live radio show on WRFD
JF: - John Freshwater, suspended 8th-grade science teacher in Mt. Vernon, OH
DM: - Don Matolyak, pastor of Trinity Worship Center in Mt. Vernon
ANN: - Announcers
NC: - Nancy in Columbus, OH
BG: - Bill in Glenford, OH
LD: - Lori in Delaware, OH (probably Lori Miller, math teacher at Mt. Vernon's middle school).

ANN: The Word - 880 WRFD

[KELLY HAMILTON LEAVES OVER BREAK]

BB: Welcome to Bob Burney Live, and of course it is Friday, and that would normally be Open Phone Friday but I have special guests in the studio with me. John Freshwater, eighth grade sun- I keep wanting to say Sunday school teacher, I don't know whether that's a Freudian slip, eighth-grade science teacher in Mt. Vernon that is on unpaid leave and many, myself included, believe unjustly. Don Matolyak, his pastor, is with us in the studio, and Kelly Hamilton, his attorney, had to leave, but gentlemen, thanks you for spending some more time with us this afternoon, I really appreciate you making the trip down from Mt. Vernon to be with us to, to get the truth out.

DM: Our privilege Bob, thank you.

JF: Thank you.

BB: You know, I know it has been frustrating, particularly for you, John, not to be able to defend yourself, not being able to speak when, when vicious things have been said about you and continue to be said. So, I'm thrilled that the muzzle is off a little bit. I know we have to be careful because there is litigation pending so I know we have to be somewhat careful, but I'm grateful that, that you're able to, to talk.

This, this has got to, and I don't want to get too personal, John, but this has got to be tough on you financially. You're suspended without pay. I don't want any details, but how you, how you doing? And I mean, I mean I can't get into the details of your legal offense but if the school board has spent 300, how much Don, 308?

DM: $308,00.

BB: $308,000 trying to get rid of you. You're defending yourself, you have an attorney, obviously there are fees involved. So, without going into a whole lot of personal how, how you doing?

JF: You know, I first have to, I've got a great attorney, and I want to mention that again. Kelly Hamilton's been excellent. He, he has well over a 1000 hours in this

BB: Oh my goodness.

JF: He certainly deserves to be paid. He deserves to be paid. And I, I have, I'm fortunate that I, I do have a farm and I do have some crops that I can sell, okay. It's not lucrative, but it's asparagus and Christmas trees and apples and things like that that I do have. And that does, that has been,

BB: That's a weird combination. Asparagus, asparagus and Christmas trees. No wonder you got fired.

JF: But you know, my clientele was my teachers so you know, I kind of lost a hunk of my clientele there. But, you know, I, we're surviving. I have been overly, overly blessed by my church. My home church has, have shook my hands many times and in their hands there is, there is money. And I have been just, really have been blessed with that. So, and not just my church. There has been, the local churches in Mt. Vernon have been supporting me. There's been some people outside the state, I don't even know who they are, that has heard wind of this, caught wind of this and has been sending some finances my way. I see myself as a blessed man.

BB: Since we've broached this, and we're going to go to the phones, those of you that are holding on the phone, be patient, I'll be with you in just a moment.

Don, how can listeners help support John and his legal defense fund.

DM: We have set up a non-profit corporation.

BB: 'Cause you're not drawing tax dollars, are you,

DM: Absolutely not.

BB: You can't go to the treasury, draw $300,000.

DM: No, we can't go ask for another levy to pay for it, either. But God's People have been very, very good, and we set up a legal defense fund, and the organization's called Community Council for Free Expression. You can just say Community Council. And if you would want to help us, you can make your check out to Community Council, you can send it to us at 1051 Beach street, Mt. Vernon Ohio, 43050. And I guarantee that every penny that comes in is being used for his legal defense and example all these appeals, they take money $300-$400 a pop, so, plus we are trying to, when we get some money in, we, we want to pay Kelly so we're involved in doing that. So,Community Council for Free Expression 1051 Beach street, Mt. Vernon Ohio, and every penny is going to this.

BB: Let's go back to the phones, we've got Nancy in Columbus. Nancy, you're on the air with John Freshwater. Thank you for calling, and welome.

NC: Thank you! Thank you for having this subject, and blessings to you John Freshwater, I really, really admire your constitution and steadfastness, bless your heart.

JF: Thank you, Nancy

DM: Thank you.

NC: Keep it up! Oh, thank you, God. I say lots of prayers for you. And you probably listen every once in a while to Jay Seculo he's, you know, on the radio, with, like you. Well, I have to say that it takes my breath away on several accounts because when I was teaching in China, twelve years ago at the university level, we were allowed to bring in one Bible, we could not talk, I would talk to the students out on the balcony. And they gave me trouble when I was leaving there, and It takes my breath away to think that this is going on in our country,

BB: Yeah.

NC: And also, I talked with the head of, person, who certifies in Washington what the science program is going to look like, and that person said to me other countries are laughing at us, because they, we have this issue, and other countries do not. And she said this is not an issue in her country. That takes my breath away.

BB: Well, it is indeed sad, Nancy, that many, many countries who are even considered socialist have more freedom in their public schools to discuss issues like this than we do in America. I've been in Moldova, which is a communist country, and have actually given my testimony and taught Bible stories in public schools in a communist country, and here we have Mt. Vernon, Ohio, and a man's trying to be fired because he has a Bible on his desk. On his desk, not reading it, you know, not sharing it, just laying on his desk. Nancy, thank you for your support and your prayers. I know that means a lot to John.

NC: Blessings to you, John.

JF: Thank you, Nancy, and just want to make a comment on that is that, also, I did actually teach for one year in China, and I know exactly where you're coming from on some of those things. And I did have the freedom to share over there and my Bible was on my desk there.

NC: Good, good, good.

BB: Alright, Nancy, thank you.

NC: Hey, be blessed.

BB: Thank you, you, too. Bill in Glenford, you're up next on Bob Burney Live with John Freshwater and Don Matolyak. Hi, Bill.

BG: Hello, pastor

DM: Hello.

BG: I got, actually, two-part question, one is for the lawyer. I was wondering, isn't the American judicial system set up to the, with the premise that anybody who is accused of anything has the right to face their accusers. And two, this is a question for John Freshwater himself, I was wondering, you know, since he teaches evolution, what his real belief is about creationism, creationalism, you know, according to the Scriptures. And that's about it.

BB: Alright. Well, Bill, the attorney, Kelly Hamilton, has had to leave, and that's something we're not allowed to discuss, because it may bear on present or future litigation. So, we're forbidden to discuss that, unfortunately. Alright?

BG: Okay.

BB: Alright, Bill. Hey, thanks.

BG: Alright, you're welcome.

BB: Quickly to Lori, in Delaware, Ohio. Hi, Lori. You're on Bob Burney Live. LD

LD: Hey.

BB: Thank you for calling, and welcome.

LD: Well, welcome right back. Hey, Fresh! Hi, Pastor Don.

DM: Hello, Lori

JF: Hello.

BB: Now, wait a minute! Wait a minute! There's something going on here? Lori, it sounds like you know these gentlemen.

LD: Oh, absolutely, in fact I, I teach with John, and I guess, you know, the thing that bothers me the most, and John, God bless you, man, is that I really think it's important that the public really, truly knows that John Freshwater is a man of absolute integrity. This is a man that truly, truly loves the Lord and, and, for the accusations that have been brought out about him are so wrong and so unjustified that for those of us that know John, and for those of us that know the truth it, it is absolutely heartbreaking. And I guess I just, you know, part of me just wants to say, you know, shame on our board of education. Shame on the board of education of Mt. Vernon, that there isn't a single one of them that's gonna step up and say you know what? This is absolutely foolish; this is wrong. This is absolutely wrong what is happening to John Freshwater. And somebody needs to stop it. And I just felt absolutely compelled. John, you know I love you, my heart goes out to you, and you know, I don't know what else to say except, you and I both know that the truth, sooner or later, will finally get out there.

BB: Now, Lori,

LD: It will finally get out there.

BB: You are a teacher in the Mt. Vernon schools?

LD: Yes, yes i am.

BB: Can I ask you a question, and if you don't want to answer, please just tell me it's none of my business. Do you have,

LD: Yes, I have a Bible on my desk

BB: Well, I was gonna ask

LD: Absolutely.

BB: And do you understand the possible consequences?

LD: Absolutely. Yes, yep.

BB: And it's still gonna stay there?

LD: It's okay. Absol- I've been told it's allowed to stay there.

BB: Alright.

LD: I've been told that it is allowed to stay there, and stay it will. So, and, again, that just goes to show the total injustice that is happening with Freshwater, which is just this, it's such a foolish waste of money and the wrongness that is being done to such a good, good man. So,

BB: Well, Lori, thank you for your call.

DM: Thanks for your courage, even, in calling today.

BB: Absolutely, thank you so much, yeah, thank you for your courage not only in calling, but by taking your own personal stand in the Mt. Vernon schools. Thank you and God bless you.

LD: Alright. Same right back to you.

JF: Thank you, Lori

DM: Thank you, Lori.

LD: Uh-huh, bye bye.

BB: John, you might want to know, just as we go into this break, when all of this broke, I got probably a dozen emails from teachers all over the state of Ohio who said: "I have not had a Bible on my desk, but from now on I will." And you have encouraged them to do that, and because of this, teachers all over the state of Ohio have placed a Bible on their desk, willing to take the consequences. We'll be right back

ANN: Find your new church home in your neighborhood with WRFD's Church Quest. Now available at wrfd.com.

BB: This is Bob Burney Live, a Friday edition, and in the studio with me today, John Freshwater, the embattled and I think very courageous eighth-grade science teacher. I got one email, John, from one of our listeners, and it wasn't mean-spirited by any means, but it was kind of castigating me for only giving one side of the story today. Well, my response to that is the other side has already been given in the press. You know, your side not has exactly been communicated through the news media. And I think that the other side has been well published. And I think we are giving the other side today. Am I exaggerating that, Don? I'm not gonna ask John that.

DM: You're exactly right on. We've had so much of the other stuff out there that I believe that this is equal time, so to speak.

BB: Yeah. Yeah. This is the other side.

And by the way, there is breaking news down at the state house. We're not going to take a lot of time to talk about this, but evidently, the stalemate on the state budget has been broken. A deal has been reached on the state budget. And as a result, guess what, Ohio? We're gonna have thousands of very addictive video lottery terminals at Ohio's seven race tracks. It's gonna be a done deal.

DM: Mmm hmm.

BB: Now, when I first read that, and I want to talk about John Freshwater today, I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on this, but first read the headline I thought oh, Bill Harris caved. And I consider Bill a friend, the president of the Ohio senate, I think he's a good man. And my heart just sank and I thought, he caved; that's not really true. They have forced, Bill Harris and the senate Republicans have forced Governor Strickland to agree to implement the video lottery terminals by executive order. In other words, it will be his single decision, one man signing a piece of paper putting increased gambling in the state of Ohio. A man who campaigned,

DM: That's right.

BB: On no increased gambling. And it will be his signature that will bring it about. In return, the legislature will put forth legislation to legislate the slot machines. And I think that they were at an impasse. It was more than a Mexican stand-off. And I think that the governor blinked because he said that he absolutely never would implement it through an executive order. But if the news report that I'm getting, that I'm looking at right now is correct, he is going to sign an executive order, and then the legislature will implement legislation to regulate the increased gambling. So I'm not happy with that, but at least the senate Republicans did not cave completely.

Now. Don, you're a pastor and I know you're concerned about this gambling thing. Let me look through my stack of stuff here just real quick. You know, this just came,

DM: Right.

BB: Today, you know the ink isn't even dry on getting the slot machines only in the, only in the seven race tracks here in Ohio.

DM: Right.

BB: Okay. Now, Don, I want you to look at this. This is Ohio House of Representatives,

DM: Okay.

BB: The office of Joseph F. Kuzira. Look at the co-sponsor request and the subject of the legislation he wants to pass.

DM: "Co-Sponsor Request: Expanded VL, video lottery terminal opportunity" and, looking here for co-sponsor, that,

BB: Yeah. It's a co-sponsor request.

DM: Yes.

BB: From this legislator.

DM: Yes.

BB: And he's saying,

DM: "I plan on introducing legislation which would substantionally expand the types of establishments allowed, allowed to bid on video lottery terminals beyond race tracks. So they want to go beyond the race tracks, now.

BB: Oh yeah. Oh yeah.

DM: Yeah.

BB: You know, the governor said,

DM: Right.

BB: The governor said "only the seven race tracks. That's all."

DM: Right.

BB: The ink is not even dry,

DM: Exactly.

BB: And we have right here, this just came to me today, this afternoon, where legislation is now going to be introduced to expand it beyond the race tracks, because it says "The expanded list would include businesses, hotels, restaurants, other establishments with liquor licenses, bowling alleys, because many," - and I'm quoting - "many businesses in these categories are well-suited to offer VLT gambling in a safe and economically conducive environment. It is the goal of offering VLTs to make them available to the public and increase the state of Ohio's revenue. Furthermore, I do not believe in giving race tracks a monopoly." It's not fair!

DM: Oh, really. What are they going to do, take it to Mt. Vernon middle school next to help pay for firing John?

BB: You knew. You knew this was going to happen.

DM: Sure, absolutely, Bob.

BB: You knew it was going to happen. The governor, you know, I mean, just a month ago, thirty days ago, the governor says never.

DM: Right.

BB: Those video lottery terminals, and I have quotes from him, from just a month ago, "they don't pay off."

DM: Right.

BB: "We seced research in other states and they don't pay off."

DM: And he campaigned on that, Bob.

BB: "They don't bring the money in that they promise. No, no, no, no." And less than 30 days later, the governor says "Well, we don't have any choice. But we're only going to do it at the race tracks."

DM: Hmmmm.

BB: And already,

DM: Right.

BB: I mean, before this is even a done deal, officially, we have legislation that is going to be presented to the Ohio House of Representatives, well if you do it at the race tracks, you gotta do it everywhere else.

DM: Pandora's box, Pandora's box.

BB: Welcome to Las Vegas east of the Missisippi. Just don't you love Ohio politics and Ohio school boards. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to take away,

DM: That's alright, Bob. No.

BB: But this is breaking news, it just came out. Just came out. Alright, I'd love to hear from you, and questions, comments for John Freshwater. 877-BOB-LIVE.

ANN: This is Bob Burney Live

ANN: Get the inside scoop on WRFD news, contests and promotions. Sign up to become a WRFD Insider at wrfd.com.

Bob Burney Live on WRFD June 10 - John Freshwater Interview Part 4 of 4

BB: - Bob Burney of Bob Burney Live radio show on WRFD
JF: - John Freshwater, suspended 8th-grade science teacher in Mt. Vernon, OH
DM: - Don Matolyak, Freshwater's pastor at Trinity Worship Center in Mt. Vernon
JW: - Jason Whitt, Bob Burney Live producer, host of Mid-day Magazine on WRFD
ANN: - Announcers on WRFD
SC: - Sam in Columbus, OH
DC: - David in Columbus, OH

ANN: Pastors: Get news, information and insight from pastors for pastors. Sign up
to become a Very Important Pastor at WRFD.com.

BB: It's a Friday edition of Bob Burney Live. And I've got guests in the studio. John Freshwater, and Don Matolyak, his pastor. And we're going to go back to the phones, but Jason, are you doing anything tomorrow, or are you just laying around the house watching sports all day?

JW: Well, that'll be after 1 o'clock.

BB: From 10 to 1, Jason and I both are going to be at chick-fil-As. I will be at the Polaris chick-fil-A on Sankis. I've got the Wheel of Fun, all kinds of things to give away, I, I don't think Jason will have anything, but,

JW: I will have all the same tickets, and the advantage of not having you, out at the chick-fil-A on Hilliard Road

BB: See, folks. You've got to come to Sankis. Because if not, Jason will never let me hear the end of it. Anyway, we're going to have a good time. 10-1 tomorrow, and we do have lots of neat things to give away. And I'm looking forward to meeting many of you, and I'm sure, Jason, you are looking forward to meeting the three people who come by to see you tomorrow.

JW: Hey, the more the merrier. If there are three, then that's two more than I expected.

BB: 10 - 1 tomorrow, and where are you going to be?

JW: I'm going to be at the chick-fil-A at the Market at Hilliard, that's over on Hilliard Rome Road, not too far off of 70.

BB: Alright, and I will be at the Polaris chick-fil-A on Sankis Boulevard, and we'll both be there 10-1 tomorrow.

JW: Worst comes to worst, we get chicken sandwiches to eat.

BB: Alright. John, let's go back to the phone. We've got Sam in Columbus who has some comments for you. Sam, welcome. You're on the air on Bob Burney Live with John Freshwater.

SC: Thank you, Bob. It's, it's cost the Mt. Vernon school board $300k to this point, what has it cost Mr Freshwater?

BB: Don, you wanna handle that?

DM: Lemmee, I'll answer as best I can. It's actually cost John everything, but you know.

SC: Or is that anybody's business? It may not be, I don't know.

DM: Well, I'll tell you that the school, the Board of Education's paid out $308,000. We have been able to raise through the Community Council for Free Expression a fraction of that, and, probably 10% maybe of that i don't have the exact figures in front of me. So, we have, we've done our best, and, as John said earlier, Kelly Hamilton deserves to be paid, and by the way, the school board's attorney I believe is getting $400 / hour. So, Kelly has over 1000 hours, actually more like 1100 hours in on this case to this point.

BB: Whoa.

DM: So, it's not even close.

BB: Is it, we know that John has made a tremendous sacrifice financially. He is on unpaid leave, he's suspended without pay, so we know he's made a tremendous financial sacrifice. And again, it's none of my business, but would it be correct to say that Kelly Hamilton has made a tremendous financial sacrifice to be involved in this endeavor.

DM: He sure has, absolutely, Bob. And Kelly has, he has not been in this for money. He has made a huge sacrifice. And I believe that there are cases that he has probably not even taken because of this case, that he would have been paid handsomely.

BB: Sure, sure. And the school board has how many attorneys at their disposal? Did I hear Kelly say 12?

DM: At least 12. And because there are more people that, that will need to be represented because of the lawsuits out, so there'll be considerably more. Bob, you would be amazed hearing room, to see what goes on, because over on, I'm sitting facing the referee and I've been there virtually every day sitting in the little gallery, and to my left is John Freshwater and, and then there's one attorney from the insurance company, and he's sitting there; but then there's only one other attorney sitting there, and that's Kelly Hamilton. On the other side, we have Mr. Millstone from the Board of Education, we have, generally there's an insurance attorney, then there's an attorney for the boy's family who claims that he was branded, and sometimes there's even another attorney sitting in there, so it's almost like, yeah, take, like you said David vs Goliath, and now in this other, they're all the more attorneys - 12 to 1.

BB: Does that help, Sam?

SC: Is there any idea what this final, total cost is gonna be?

BB: For John?

SC: Yeah, if this was gonna be totaled up today. What would it be?

DM: Wow. We, we have no clue, really but yeah, if Kelly has had a thousand, 1100 hours in, I'm going to say that at least half a million, $300,000 should be going to Kelly

BB: Which is not.

DM: Right. Which is not.

BB: Which is not, but it should be.

SC: So now, now when the Mt Vernon board loses because it's a unfair trial, will they pay Kelly what he's worth?

DM: You know, in the settlements, and I'm, I'm not the one that really knows all the details in this, but in a settlement you know, yeah, we hope to, to recoup legal fees for Kelly Hamilton absolutely. So, and that would come,

BB: And by the way,

DM: I believe, from an insurance company.

BB: Yeah, okay, thanks. Alright Sam, hey thanks for the call. Yeah, go ahead.

SC: One more question on the school board. Now, do they have the money in hand to pay what, what they need to pay their attorney and Kelly?

BB: Well, to my,

SC: Where will that come from?

BB: They have, they are paid up, correct?

DM: They are paid up. They have paid out of their funds $308,000 plus.

BB: That's how much has been paid

DM: Yes.

BB: Not, not billed, but that has actually been paid

DM: Right. The bill is going up every day.

BB: Out of their coffers

DM: Out of my tax dollars

BB: yeah

SC: Okay.

BB: Alright?

SC: One more, one more general question. If anyone there knows the answer, I'm not sure, but, can Mr. Strickland be removed from office for breaking a campaign promise?

BB: You know, I don't think so. You know, that's really weird, Sam, because just yesterday I was thinking about an effort to remove him from office, but lawsuits - if, when this deal is done, and Governor Strickland starts expanded gambling through an executive order, there're a couple of organizations here in the state of Ohio file that are going to file a lawsuit against him and against the state, stating that he does not have the constitutional authority to expand gambling. So, we'll see where that goes. So. Sam, good talk to ya, thanks for the call, I appreciate it.

Again, our telephone number is 877-BOB-LIVE. Visiting with John Freshwater, Don Matolyak. We'll be back with more of your phone calls and comments from my guests as well.

ANN: From Cincinnati to Canton. From Toledo to Portsmouth. This is Bob Burney Live.

ANN: The Word. 880 WRFD.

BB: Thank you again for joining me on a special, and I think very significant edition of Bob Burney Live. I thin it's so important that John Freshwater have the opportunity to tell his side of this story. He's not been able to respond because of legal restrictions, and I understand that, but, John, I'm just so grateful that you were wiling to come today and bare your heart and soul with our, with our listeners. Now, I've gotta ask a question, the hearings

DM: Yes.

BB: Right now, have been going on forever. They started right after Noah landed. I'm sure that's got to seem like that to you, John. How long have they been going on, the hearings, actually?

DM: Since October, and I believe we've had over 20 days of hearing to this point.

BB: Okay, the hearings have been going on since October, and this is you appealing the firing, correct?

JF: Yes.

DM: Yes.

BB: This is an employment hearing,

JF: Yes.

BB: That you legally have a right to. Okay. Now, since the school board brought about this action, they've obviously got to be very, very concerned about what's going on in these hearings and how their money is being spent. How many of the school board members are usually at these hearings?

DM: Bob, I have been there every day of the hearing and not one day has any member of the Board of Education showed up at the hearing.

BB: You're kidding.

DM: Not one day.

BB: You're kidding.

DM: not kidding at all

BB: So, the people who initiated this action.

DM: Right.

BB: Have not been to even one hearing?

DM: Not at all. And, see, they're getting all of their information about the, about this, from guess what? Their attorney! He's telling them how well the case is going. He's informing them of those things. They're not coming at all to, to show up. And, I mean they have brought nothing, I mean, they have no first-hand knowledge,

BB: See, that did it. Don, John, it's a good thing I don't live in Mt. Vernon. If I was a taxpayer, and I was watching this circus go on, I mean, Mt. Vernon's not that big a town.

DM: No, it's not.

BB: $300000

DM: Correct.

BB: And we're a long ways from being done.

DM: We're a long ways from being done.

BB: Is it possible this could reach a half-million dollars?

DM: Very much so, Bob. The way it looks now, and if they continue in this, this vein, half a milion is not in any way, shape or form implausible.

BB: And John, maybe I shouldnt ask you this. Seriously, maybe I shouldn't. But this has gotta rip your heart out. Because you love the kids. You love the schools. You've invested 21 years of your life. And to see $300,000 being flushed down the toilet,

DM: Right.

BB: To get rid of you, how do you, how do you handle that, John?

JF: Well, you know what? I, be honest I really do miss teaching. All I want is the truth to come out, and I wanna get back in the classroom teaching again.

BB: You'd be willing to go back in the Mt Vernon schools,

JF: Yes!

BB: After all they've done to you.

JF: Yes!

BB: you'd we willing to go back, after, after all they've done to you. You'd go back, because of the kids. To teach the kids.

JF: Yes, I would love to be back there with my Bible on the corner of the desk.

DM: By the way, it should be known that John Freshwater asked the Board of Education to show up at the, to be there, and they have not been there. And something else. In the previous segment we were talking about money. I think it really, yeah, John and Nancy have put everything on the line, but, it should be known that Kelly Hamilton will be paid in full,

JF: Yes, he will.

DM: One way or another, and that, I mean, John and Nancy, their commitment has been all the way through this that we you know, we will do what we need to do. And they have committed to, to paying Kelly regardless.

BB: Wow. Let's go back to the phones. David in Columbus, you're on the air with John Freshwater. Hi, David.

DC: Hi Bob. John, you know, I'll pray for you that you get your job, and, you know, that I think that everyone out in the listening audience ought to pray for you too, because,

JF: Thank you.

DC: Because having a Bible on the desk, I think that's important. And, you know, a week ago last Thursday I was down to OEA building, 225 East Broad, I guess that's Ohio Education Association.It's, it's some type of union, right? Are you familiar with them?

JF: Yes. That is,

DC: I heard that they were pro-choice and pro-homosexual. And we've all, you know, pro-life signs down there and handed out Bible tracts. And, but, you know, do you have much knowledge of that group, OEA

DM: Ah, lemme just state, take this question because really, John, that's not really good for John to come in and answer that.

DC: Oh, okay.

DM: But, but know this, you know, we, I appreciate people that are standing for, for biblical truth, but, I don't know that John really knows much as much about what they stand for, because he's never been a member of the union.

BB: And that really doesn't bear on this issue anyway, so,

DM: Yeah.

BB: We gotta take a break. We'll be back with the final moments of today's program with John Freshwater and Don Matolyak.

ANN: Call 1-877-BOB-LIVE. Bob Burney Live. Listen. Think. Discern.

ANN: Daily Devotionals. Bible Search. And your own personalized Bible. Just click on Bible study tools at WRFD.com.

BB: Closing moments of today's program with John Freshwater. John, I'm gonna ask you two quick questions. We don't have a whole lot of time. In hindsight, if when the school board first demanded that you remove the Bible from your desk, if you had complied and just taken that Bible off your desk, do you think the rest of this would have happened?

JF: No. No.

BB: Okay. So, in hindsight, John, you've lost your job, you've lost your livelihood, and obviously 18 months have been the most difficult time of your entire life and for your family. Just a simple little thing of taking that Bible of your desk. In hindsight, if you knew that all of this would go away, would you have taken the Bible off your desk?

JF: No i would not, it's, like I say it's my inspiration. Its what guides me.

BB: It's that important.

JF: That, it's that important.

BB: Principle is that important to you.

JF: Yes. I was raised that way, and I, that is me.

BB: Listen, folks, you need to pray for John Freshwater, because if his rights are taken away, yours are next.

DM: That's right.

BB: Yours are next. Now Don, quickly, in the final seconds, give us the address where people can contribute to the legal defense fund.

DM: They can help us out by sending to Community Council, 1051 Beech Street, Mt. Vernon, Ohio. 1051 Beech Street, Mt. Vernon, Ohio. 43050

BB: And if you want to send an encouraging note to John Freshwater, send it to me, bob@bobtalk.com. And I'll make sure that John receives it. Gentlemen, we're praying for you. Thank you for being here.

JF: Thank you Bob.

DM: Thank you, Bob.

BB: And John, thank you for taking a stand for all of us because that's what you're doing.

Have a wonderful weekend. Please, be in a good Bible-believing church. If you don't have one, make this the weekend you find one. And wherever you go and whatever you do, remember whose you are.

ANN: Listen. Think. Discern. The Word. 880 WRFD.

Scientific American Podcast 1/7/10 "Alan Alda's Human Spark"

2010-01-20T19:14:00.000-08:00

[The podcast started with them talking about how Alda had been reading Scientific American and other popular science magazines cover to cover for 50 years, that Alda came from what is now called a New Age family background, but that his years of reading scientific articles had led him to a skeptical, pro-science viewpoint]

SciAm: Speaking of doors opening, how did you wind up hosting "Scientiific American Frontiers" all those [11] years?"

Alda: I got a letter from the producers asking me if I was interested in hosting the show. And I .. my guess was that what they really wanted me to do was to come on camera at the beginning and say "Welcome to the show!" and then to get off camera and read a narration, and I really wasn't interested in that. But I said to them "if you're interested, what really interests me is if I can talk to the scientists, if I can interview them." Because then I knew that I'd be spending the whole day, not just on camera but the rest of the day, having a chance to talk with them about their work, and that really interested me a lot. And they took a big chance doing that, because they didn't know how it would work out. I wasn't a professional interviewer. I was just curious.
But what was really good, and none of us expected, was that what would happen was that it would become an improvisation where I would use a couple of skills I have as an actor, one of which is to listen, and I would get to exercise my curiosity. And that became a dynamic interaction between me and the scientists, where they really had to talk to me and explain to me what they did so that I understood it. I wasn't there to just lob questions to them so that they could just make a lecture to the camera about what they did. They actually had to make me understand. And that changed their voice, it changed their face. It engaged them, and made them more engaging. And we just stumbled into that because I was curious in the first place, and wanted to be able to talk with them. But it was the conversation that changed them.

SciAm: Well, you've just been teaching scientists some of these improvisational acting techniques in an effort to get them to communicate better.

Alda: I have. It's kind of an experiment that I've been doing. Partly because I realized how much it benefited most of the scientists to get engaged in a conversation and not to go into lecture mode. It made them so much more appealing and easier to understand, their work easier to understand. So I thought, I benefited in my life as an actor from studying improvisation and everybody I know who has improvised for a certain period of time has become more charismatic. Every actor. So I thought, well, experiment with this. I had a friend, a teacher who taught at USC and I was gonna be at USC one day so I said "why don't you ask 20 engineering students to come in, prepared to talk about their work for about 2 minutes?"

SciAm: You picked engineering students because you figured they'd be the most obtuse?

Alda: Not necessarily! I just knew that they had an engineering school there. So, yeah, sure, get me in trouble with engineers now! So they came in and they talked about their work, each for about two minutes. And then we did about 3 hours of improvising games. Which are very rigorous. They're not just about getting up and making things up. They go by strict rules which you have to follow. At the end, I asked them to get up again and talk for a minute or so about their work. And it was amazing, the difference. There was a real difference; they were much more conversational, they made eye contact, their language was a little more personal. I did ask them to be more personal, so it wasn't just a result of the improvising. But they were more engaged. So now, I've done it a couple of other places - just did a 6-week workshop at Stonybrook, and we had physicists and biologists, so I also did it at Brookhaven Research Center. And I've been videotaping these sessions, because I don't want to waste anybody's time, including my own. If it's going to work, I want to have some record that it's working, and how it worked, and why it worked. And most importantly, to what extent is there carry-over. I mean, they may get better after one or two sessions. And maybe because they're jumping around - they're getting physically energized. Or maybe the improvising does, over a period of time, make them more available to themselves and to the people they're talking to. So we're going to do more of this, and we'll see if it has a lasting effect.

(This is a transcription I made 1/20/10 - the SciAm podcast is available via iTunes Music Store for free)

Deleted Later

2008-09-16T10:08:00.001-07:00

Lorem Ipsum

My Comment on the new WaPo Plagiarnazi

2006-03-23T22:47:00.000-08:00

I left this at Atrios/eschaton.blogspot.com but i thought it was enlightening enough to COPY AND PASTE here.
==============
[on Ben Domenech/Red State/WaPo/etc.]

I almost did not believe this. Then I thought, hey, Self, you used to make a living plagiarizing!

And so I did. I was a radio ad copywriter. Pretty damned soul-destroying whorish work, if you actually did it. Plus, who can write an ad saying something nice about plastic awnings or overpriced brand name sneakers? Not me, for sure.

So from week one, I wrote a few ads with a mind to what the inbred people running the place (mostly a sports and bad music station) probably wanted (basically I was acting, which I'm reasonable at). And I listened to radio ads all the time (while I read dime novels). By the end of the week I had accumulated dozens, almost a hundred, phrase bits, some medium long, many of them very cliche. I then simply mixed them together at semi random and turned in the ads.

I tried to avoid the top ten phrases being stolen by the other ads (unless it was something expected like "step into summer with our new shoes" or what have you).

They said I was a gifted copywriter but had a bad, anti-business attitude and was surly, so I didn't last.

Still, in the end analysis, they never noticed that the competing ads were being recycled by me (I was reading a lot of Wm. Burroughs at the time, so it felt like detournement). After my first week, I never once wrote an original sentence. it was 100% plagiarized.

Moral: Ben Domenech should write ad copy, and I should be the WaPo Moral Values and Heartland Dreams weblog editor!

======================

FOOTNOTE EXCLUSIVE TO FASCIST OAR READERS:

Here I am even plagiarizing myself. It feels gooooood.

Don't use the phony right-wing "blogosphere ecosystem"

2006-03-06T12:05:00.000-08:00

I won't even link to it.

Check this out:

Top 4 Conservative Blogs - Via Blogads.com
Powerline - 590,127
RedState - 288,135
HughHewitt - 263.388
Wizbang - 188,841

Top 4 Liberal Blogs - Via Blogads.com
DailyKos - 4,053,290
Democratic Underground - 1,434,904
Crooks and Liars - 1,282,182
Talking Points Memo - 990,132

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/06/hinderaker-politely-responds/

And this:

1
Boing Boing: A Directory of Wonderful Things
Last updated 11 hours ago.
68,124 links from 20,298 sites
2
Engadget
Last updated 11 hours ago.
85,560 links from 15,323 sites
3
PostSecret
PostSecret is an ongoing community art project where people mail in their secrets anonymously on one side of a homemade postcard.

By frank warren. Last updated 1 day ago.
21,271 links from 12,907 sites
4
Daily Kos: State of the Nation
Last updated 11 hours ago.
50,127 links from 10,760 sites
5
spaces.msn.com/after1s
Last updated 1 day ago.
27,380 links from 8,916 sites
6
spaces.msn.com/lin28379801400
Last updated 1 day ago.
30,841 links from 8,506 sites
7
The Huffington Post

By Arianna Huffington. Last updated 1 day ago.
41,065 links from 8,353 sites
8
Official Google Blog
Last updated 1 day ago.
17,119 links from 7,224 sites
9
Thought Mechanics

By Theron Parlin and Matthew Good. Last updated 16 hours ago.
8,351 links from 7,152 sites
10
Michelle Malkin

By Michelle Malkin. Last updated 13 hours ago.
42,345 links from 6,852 sites

http://technorati.com/pop/blogs/

And now compare that to the right-wing biased "blogosphere ecosystem." This mendacious, often tweaked (and usually in favor of con blogs) list lets our mass media pretend sites like instapundit or EVEN LITTLE GREEN FOOTBALLS are popular and influential:

1.Michelle Malkin (3249) details
2.Instapundit.com (3181) details
3.Power Line (2225) details
4.Daily Kos: State of the Nation (2165) details
5.Boing Boing: A Directory of Wonderful Things (1995) details
6.lgf: germans at the alamo (1985) details
7.Captain's Quarters (1878) details
8.Hugh Hewitt (1577) details
9.Mudville Gazette (1431) details
10.Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall (1409) details

The fraud running the list program claims "liberals" (always "liberals") "game" his system, and that justifies him tweaking it to make conservative sites look more popular. If you are, in fact, inclined to "game" this farce, I suggest, "ignore" would work better. Your more popular weblogs are enabling the promotion of less popular right-wing blogs to your disadvantage. Just say no to the blogosphere ecology.

And another commentator who gets things

2006-02-27T03:59:00.000-08:00

Marxism Through the Looking Glass by Jane Smiley

So, who's surprised that citizens, wherever in the world that they happen to reside, are to serve the interests of capital? Not me. Not George Bush. Not Thomas Friedman. Not Paul Krugman. Who's surprised that the citizens didn't realize that? George Bush, but not me. From their opposite sides of the globalization aisle, Krugman and Friedman aren't so surprised, either, but they're sorry about it.

All three are promoters and apologists for globalization, and so they support the Dubai Ports deal. The first premise of globalization is that capital can, will, and must move freely around the world. Nothing should stop a sale or get in the way of market efficiency. George Bush has shown over and over in the last five years what he is willing to fight for, and it is capitalism. Sometimes, no doubt in his own mind most of the time, he identifies capitalism with the US, the company of which he is president. But other times, the US seems to defy him, and to disagree with him about the right thing to do, and then he reveals that he doesn't understand a thing about the citizenry, or about the differences between living and shopping, or governing and deal-making, and, further, that he doesn't care one iota about the US when it is in disagreement with pure capitalism.
It seems to come as a surprise to all three of these globalizers that human society is not and does not seem to most people to be simply an outgrowth of a particular economic idea, capitalism, so they should pay attention to the symbolic power of turning our ports over to Dubai. Most people do not mind shopping at Walmart but that doesn't mean that they think of themselves simply as Walmart shoppers, or that they feel that their interests and Walmart's interests must necessarily be the same. At the end of the Cold War, capitalists declared, with much chest-pounding, that they had won. But, in fact, they did not give up a Marxist analysis of what makes us human. They continued to believe that people are essentially economic agents, they just thought that the value of capital had beat out the value of labor. According to Francis Fukuyama, lots of the neo-con theorists started out as Marxists. In fact, these guys didn't change their spots at all-they just changed their allegiance to the winning side.

What, therefore, should not come as a surprise to the citizens, and this includes our soldiers in Iraq, is the fact that they have value only insofar as they are useful to Bush and his capitalist "base". From
Bush's point of view, every citizen is a worker who should work for as little as possible. It doesn't matter, as far as he is concerned, whether the worker's employer is Dubai or the US or whether the worker himself is American or Chinese or Indian. Capital has its requirements and those come first-before making a decent society in the US (of course), and before national security, and before patriotism. The capitalists are perfectly willing to use patriotism (and religion) for their own ends (say, to gain control of Iraqi oil by going to war on other pretexts), but that doesn't mean that when the time comes to give up maximum profit, patriotic or religious concerns hold any weight in their deal-making.

These days, the news is full of conservative recanters-William Buckley, Fukuyama, Bruce Bartlett. They are alleging feelings of surprise and disquiet at the failure of the war machine to subdue Iraq. But in fact, of course, as progressives have known all along, the debacle of the Bush administration, from beginning (stealing the 2000 election) to end (importing a company from Dubai to run the ports),
with all the stations along the way (tax breaks for the rich, crony corruption, stupid and criminal war in Iraq, badly conceived education policies, bungled medicare drug bill, deaf, dumb, and blind policies on
global warming and other environmental issues, voting machine fraud, media payola, gutting of the federal agencies) is the natural outcome of corporate conservative capitalism, and especially the ideas of Ronald Reagan and his own cronies. What we have now is what you get when businessmen run the government like a corporation-short term thinking, public relations as policy, repeated attempts to do things on the cheap, careless attitudes toward things like torture and spying, contempt for everyone outside the inner circle, aggressiveness and secretiveness, lack of accountability, and just plain selfish arrogant ignorance. Who knows whether their intentions are good or not? It could
be that, after a generation of free-market orthodoxy, they just don't know any better.

Capitalism is a sickness

2006-02-26T16:51:00.000-08:00

Why did Ayn Rand hate folk music?

Why does Bill O'Reilly rant about the ACLU in nearly the exact same sentences Hitler used to describe communists, labor organizers, Russians, and Jews?

In neither case are the alleged explanations the honest truth. Ayn Rand hated folk music because it was inherently harder to privatize. She talked about it's naiivete, religiousity, endorsement of rural communalism and pastoralism, etc. etc., none of which are traits of all folk music. What makes folk music folk music is the fact that it's built out of other folk music. And economic royalism has decreed that music needs to be commoditized, privatized, and locked up. In other words, sheer economic determinism made Ayn Rand speak for or against anything.

Why Bill O'Reilly attacks the ACLU more than any other group is made immediately clear looking at Fox News' history of attempting censorship by lawsuit. They sued T-shirt makers who made fun of them. O'Reilly and Fox News sued Al Franken for mocking their fair-and-balanced slogan. They even started to sue Fox itself because the "news crawl" on cartoon TV sets in The Simpsons mocked the Fox News chiron. In all but the last case, whenever Fox has tried to harrass critics into silence the ACLU has stepped in on behalf of the victims and shut Fox down. Therefore, O'Reilly's money source and his book sales determine what he hates.

Capitalism has not been with us that long. Only since the post-war era, in fact. Before that you had some of the components, but they weren't welded into an ideology. Slavery existed all over the world for a long time as a necessary evil, but no one turned it into a virtue until it became bound into the nationalism of the American South before and during the Civil War. That slavery-as-ideology is similar to what capitalism really is.

In the 1940s the US noticed that command economies - essentially still on a wartime footing - were rapidly reindustrializing in the Soviet Union and most of eastern Europe. It was clear that both the communists and the Kuomintang in China were also going to follow a command economy of some sort, with Chiang Kai-Shiek leaning towards Mussolini's corporatism and Mao imitating Lenin and Stalin. US The State Department has documents showing that Marxism was seen as a real ideological threat already as the war ended. It provided a simple analysis of politics, war, economics and government. Economic conditions trumped everything else, and commerce had to be subdued by government in every sphere of activity. The United States government consciously decided to support a counter-ideology, which we now know as capitalism. As a mirror-image of Marxism-Leninism, it would agree that economics was the only "real" dimension of human activity, the one that controlled and created all the others. But it would fanatically invert the central Marxist doctrine that commerce was always subordinate to government. Government must always be subordinate to commerce, and everything else would fall into place magically. Of course, most places in the world found Marxism more inherently acceptable, so the ideology was modified to say that, just as communism was something that would be arrived at for real only after generations of building socialism in the Marxist ideology, real capitalism would only be arrived at after first establishing increasing economic freedom, quite often through mercantilism, foreign aid and command economies.

This simple inversion of Marxism-Leninism had a parallel in the domestic US political culture. The "neoconservatives," among other features, were people who had believed, crudely, that Marxism had all the answers and Russia was always right - either Russia as it was (Stalin) or Russia as it ought to have been (Trotsky). Disillusioned - or just feeling disenfranchised - they hadimmediately flipped to a posture of "capitalism has all the answers and America is always right" (later changing to "Israel is always right" after the 1960s started).

The earlier "anti-Bolshevism" of the US government had been in the form of Red Scares, with Bolshevism seen as anarchy and mass murder of the deserving elites by a Jacobin mob. That had blended, in the 1930s, with a strong attraction of fascism for the rich and powerful of America. That culminated in an attempted coup against Roosevelt in the mid-30s, as Smedley Butler reported. What I believe the business elites were most impressed with was that Mussolini and Hitler were able to lead the masses to act against their interests and in the interests of rich elites without and overdependence on religion. Clearly, Hitler and Mussolini cited the Church and the Nation nonstop, but they also adapted the language of the left dissidents and modified it to twist their masses into ideological knots. One of the most important things they accomplished was creating enough confusion that people couldn't tell the ideologues paid to do the rich man's bidding from the spontaneous ones. Astroturf, as we call it now, was what brought fascism to power.

Thus, by the 1940s and 50s there was US government support for a "capitalist" and specifically "anti-Marxist" ideology. There was tremendous elite support for it - Herbert Hoover repurposed his Stanford Institute on War, Peace and Revolution as an explicit source of "capitalist" propaganda, making it the very first "think tank" that was only for propaganda purposes (FDR's were for problem-solving).

It was against that background that the coming to prominence of the Young Americans for Freedom, Barry Goldwater, Ayn Rand and her Objectivism, and what became the Libertarian Party is easy to understand. In essence, they were all beneficiaries of astroturf. While they pretended to attack the State Department, out of sheer demagoguery, in fact they were in a tight alliance of the State Department, the Defense Department, the OSS/CIA/NSA, and so on, all shoulder to shoulder in complete agreement on goals but only quibbling over tactics (with the astroturf rabble rousers deliberately always advocating impossible and insane tactics to look like true rebels).

By the 1970s, elites and government agents were so successful at fooling the American people and the masses of much of the world that they had become complacent. That's the true meaning behind the (Lewis) Powell memo. Justice Powell claimed capitalism had no ideological defenders, unlike Marxism, and that it needed such a defender, since Marxism was being advocated all over society and government. Of course, that was completely false. In H.L. Mencken's time, as he noted, anything outside of the most pro-business, pro-rich, pro-corporate economic teaching was completely banned from American universities, and only against that background did the presence of some left, liberal, and even Marxist professors (and only a few, most not connected with economics courses) on American campuses later on become a profusion. More importantaly, as I have indicated, Marxism had a few paltry impoverished defenders here and there, and capitalism had a huge machine built in behind it.

So Powell, not an idiot, could not have meant what he wrote. What he was saying was that he felt the capitalism machine was getting slack and complacent and that its propaganda would suffer, and people would start turning against the super-rich and the multinational corporations and the large financial institutions, and start clamoring for relief. Therefore, to head that off, the Cold War would have to be revamped, more money poured directly not just into capitalist propaganda, but into a group of parasites whose only career would be propagandizing the masses on behalf of capitalism, and luring working class people into supporting pro-capitalist policies through cultural conflict. One of the totally intentional ironies of complete business control of America's media, educational system and historical training is that no average Americans were ever exposed to Antonio Gramsci (who far predates people like Guy DeBord or Marshall McCluhan), but clearly the elites and their defenders were close students of his theories.

We all know the fallout from that - Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas? deals with how well the culture wars played out. The Cold War was indeed ramped up for no reason other than elite interests. Then, just before Reagan and Bush yanked that out from under the masses, a false existential threat from terrorism* was created in the 1980s. The elites and their representatives embraced deficit spending on the military-industrial complex not just for its own sake, but as a strategy to privatize the social network, reduce the educational level of the masses to nonthreatening levels, and create enough unemployment and underemployment to assure the death of unions and the supremacy of the elites, as well as slowly dissolving the middle class.

When I say that capitalism is a sickness, I don't mean business, commerce or profits are a sickness. But privatization of everything human beings do is a sickness. It's the mental illness fallout from trying to shoehorn all human activity into a tight-fitting capitalist mold. The tendency to capitalize everything is perhaps a necessary evil, something we have to allow around because eliminating it would be even worse. But making it not only a virtue, but the only virtue, is a recipe for a sick society. Given where the worst communist societies started from, in fact, I think it's a recipe for a sicker society even than theirs were.

*When I say the existential threat of terrorism was false, I mean it. Had the elites and their surrogates truly regarded international terrorism as a threat they would not have done the following:

1. Ignored all right wing terrorism, from the most lethal terrorist bombing in decades - a fascist bomb in Bologna Italy - to the right-wing terrorists who actually shot the Pope. The Reaganites played politics with that by pretending the KGB and Russia and Bulgaria were behind it, but they knew, we can now show, all along that that was a lie.

2. Played politics with other terrorist incidents. For instance, they milked a discotheque bomging in Berlin to justify a Mussolini-like attack on Libya, then turned around and, within weeks, declared that it was an Iranian sponsored bombing.

3. Most importantly, funded Islamists all over the world, including Al Qaeda, the mujaheddin in general, and the Taliban. Similarly, if Israel really regarded "Islamic terrorism" as a true existential threat, then their government would never have funded Hamas, a splinter of the Moslem Brotherhood, nor given it status as a recognized charity. They would have struck back at terrorist groups, as they did, but not played politics by pretending the largely military group the PLO was a terrorist organization, nor by lying and saying groups who targetted both the PLO and Israel were in fact PLO-controlled. This is leaving alone the American funding and training and harboring and general sponsorship of international terrorism in Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Namibia, Angola, and so on. Or direct US terrorism in Southeast Asia from the 1950s through the late 1980s.

The truth is, terrorism in the 1980s was a useful tool for the elites, and nothing more.

Miscellany

2006-02-24T13:41:00.000-08:00

The new link on the side to Comics Curmudgeon is interesting to me for several reasons. It's a good, funny weblog. Had Josh's site not existed, I would now be doing a comics blog (specializing, probably, in recent, alternative and also online comics, but including representative samples of the dying newspaper breed) instead of this "right-wing infection of science fiction" blog. One reason I would is because I miss The Funny Paper from the Baltimore City Paper by Scacca and MacLeod. Josh Fruhlinger is a worthy successor: he lives in Baltimore and reads the comics faithfully, and has a similarly snarky tone to Scacca and MacLeod, who've both moved on to bigger things. For my money, they were funnier than Josh, but given that there were two of them, being paid to do the column, not more than twice as funny. But that's not faint praise for Comics Curmudgeon. The Funny Paper was often my favorite column - I've gotten grown up enough that very little really makes me laugh and Scacca and Macleod usually delivered.

Very rarely do I completely disagree with "Ruben Bolling" of "Tom the Dancing Bug," but I did when he downplayed the importance of the Taliban bombing the millennia-old Buddhist mountain carvings in Afghanistan. Yes, the treatment of women under the Taliban was reprehensible, but that demolition was the destruction of symbols of tolerance and respect for a variety of traditions in Afghanistan, and a declaration of war on anything not conforming to the Talibs. Symbolic things like that, including flags and mosques/shrines, have importance beyond themselves as repositories for people's beliefs that they can act out of motives besides venality. In light of that, I think the unpresident almost got it right when he said destroying the shrine showed the bombers to be the enemies of everyone in Iraq. That's the kind of thing that builds for the future. 20 years from now we'll still be thanking the bombers for ethnic violence in and around Iraq, quite possibly.

Some people can only express their gratitude for the democracy and freedom of America by flag veneration, and that's why the rest of us have to at least show a modicum of respect for that fact. What the bombers did was like burning the original editions of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and melting the Liberty Bell (as well as, and I'm not forgetting it, killing several people that day). This is unlike assassinating government leaders or killing American GIs, both of which are legitimate military activities.

If I had had my way the American aggression in Iraq would have been a miserable failure, but without building for future, perhaps endless, ethnic/religious strife. I got the first part of my wish.

By the way, only a complete moral idiot would have wanted "America to win in Iraq." Even a child could tell you that would only lead to further fascist repression domestically as Wussolini beat his chest over his triumphs, then to aggression against Syria and Iran and probably a dozen other countries until ALL the troops were used up and the rest of the world was scrambling for ways to make the United States pay for its blindness, ways which it would locate fairly rapidly.

I haven't forgotten James Hogan's Kicking the Sacred Cow - i'll do a quick survey of why I think it's unfortunate and wrong. Then I can move to the economic stuff that's more central to my weblog. Then, finally, once I've established a few examples, principles, even utility posts, I can get back to what I normally do, which is introduce humor into these, so far, dark and fairly strident broadsides.

Here's a commentator that understands the problem

2006-02-21T11:18:00.000-08:00

A Cold Shoulder
Brian Zepp Jamieson

The Science Fiction community – in America, at least – has always had a strong representation from people who are either libertarians or free marketeers, or (for those incapable of seeing the built-in conflict between market demands and individual rights) both. The worst cases are Randroids, who are utterly convinced that government is the root of all evil, and that churches and corporations wouldn’t DREAM of taking over the power vacuum if government were to be somehow eliminated from human affairs. Aside from being rather poorly thought out, it also has a rather vile premise, that human greed can be counted upon to solve all social problems.

Like in Rwanda, perhaps.

It’s an ideology, an odd one that celebrates the individuality of humans while vociferously opposing any other viewpoints, labeling such as “socialist” and “authoritarian.” As if churches or corporations wouldn’t share such traits.

Holding this particular ideology doesn’t mean someone can’t write great science fiction. Robert Heinlein incorporated it in a lot of his novels, and usually did so in a way that didn’t interfere with the magic of the story one bit. I often most enjoyed the stories where I was most likely to disagree with the political philosophy that informed the story.

Larry Niven and James Pournelle (Pournelle in particular) wrote stories driven by a benign and efficient free market. Then they started writing together, and wrote a couple of SF classics: “The Mote in God’s Eye” and “Lucifer’s Hammer”.

They wrote some other books, but in general, the team hit a decline. They wrote one in the late eighties in which one or both writers decided it was high time someone gave those weak-kneed librul environmentalists the kicking around they so richly deserved. This was some twenty years ago, when there was a lot of room for legitimate debate about global warming. They posited a world gripped in a massive ice age, with glaciers spreading rapidly south of Minnesota. Characters in the book ruefully admitted that they could have avoided this disaster if they had only kept pumping CO2 into the atmosphere to stave off the next ice age. The book was written with the truculent anger of AM talk radio. It had a number of other flaws and might have been a failure in any event, but when reading fiction, science fiction in particular, suspension of disbelief is all-important, and it doesn’t happen if the writer is sitting between you and the printed word and making faces at you.

Let alone shouting “This [imaginary] disaster is all YOUR fault, you liberal bastard!”

They crossed a line between writing a story based on a philosophy, and tractor art. They blew right through that line that separates advocacy from propaganda.

So it stood to reason that a dozen years later, Michael Crichton, always behind the curve, would try something similar. He wrote a book “State of Fear.”

Now, truth in advertising time: I haven’t read the book. Crichton is uneven at the best of times, and reading a book that stems from an effort to promote a long-since discredited notion (in this case, that global warming is nothing more than fear-mongering from people who, Unabomber-like, are Luddites who hate technology and want us all back living in the trees.) It really doesn’t sound like a promising read. When Niven and Pournelle wrote their book [Fallen Angels], there was at least some credibility for their belief. Michael Crichton has come along and taken an Allen Drury approach to a topic that is, in the scientific community, no longer even faintly controversial. Global warming is a fact. Human involvement is regarded as a given. A lot of the major corporations that did so much to promote the ideas espoused by Crichton, Niven and Pournelle now admit those ideas are inoperative, and are working to stave off the coming disaster.

But True Believers don’t handle changes in dogma from on high very well. Ironically, Crichton includes a screed in his book warning of “Politicized science.” Presumably, as opposed to politicized science fiction.

How Capitalism Makes You Stupid #2: Scott Adams vs. Scott Adams

2006-02-19T23:37:00.000-08:00

In the last post I related how Scott Adams claims reducing America's dependence on foreign oil won't affect the foreign sources. It's a weird, extreme claim, typical of his intellectual laziness.

Worse, however, it's directly contrary to his thinking on crime. In The Dilbert Future, Adams looked forward to the "rise of the Hairy Reasoners" who would speak slowly and clearly (because people who don't get Scott Adams' lunatic and ignorant ideas are stupid) and say that locking up career criminals for life would indeed reduce crime, because otherwise you would have to accept the ludicrous, impossible notion that new people would step in to commit the crimes previously committed by the three-strikes offenders. That, therefore, claiming it wouldn't reduce crime is insane, and the only real issues are justice and fairness and workability.

There are several problems with this:

1. While the three strikes laws usually start with a conviction for a violent offense, after that your strikes can be purely status crimes, vice crimes, or economic crimes. This is to the point, because, frankly, most crime is an economic activity. Nearly everything organized crime does is economic, virtually all white-collar crime is, and most petty and otherwise retail crime is. Hiring a hitman is economic, so is killing a spouse or relative for insurance or an inheritance.

Moreover, even noneconomic crime is heavily effected by both the health of an economy and what kind of system it is. Therefore, you have to treat crime as a kind of market (clearly, where crime and market merge is in the black market and the underground economy, which virtually every society has).

Adams' argument is the kind of economic thinking that led right-wingers to say by taking on MicroSoft, the Clinton administration ruined the dot-com boom. It's thinking that if you remove an actor from a market, the market itself contracts that much. Somehow, according to Adams, that doesn't happen with oil, but it does with crime. Crime is due only to the depravity of the criminals, not to any incentives or disincentives being present, and not due to any needs or desires on their parts.

2. You also have to look at what kinds of criminals get the three strikes. Clearly, never a white-collar criminal. Also, not a really skillful criminal, or they wouldn't get caught three times in the same state and face life in prison. Not the most heinous criminals, because you can already get life for them. So what you're taking out of the market are agents who are poor, minorities, not good at crime, and not the worst offenders. Given that, the assumption that it's a certainty that actual crime will go down is absurd. What probably would go down are, eventually, for a while, arrests and convictions. That's not nearly the same thing.

And the economic reasoning above assures us that eventually people will indeed step in to take up the slack. Because that's what happens in economic activity. If MicroSoft folded its tent tomorrow, people would still make and sell computers with operating systems. Obviously, no market is perfect and there would be *some* effects, but they wouldn't likely be permanent or earth-shaking.

Anyway, if Scott was right, the nations with the most Draconian laws would have the least crime. Period. Because people don't step up to do the crime the other were doing. Ever. Some work that way - Singapore, for instance. Others don't - lots of developing nations have both Draconian laws and rampant crime. Most of Europe is not as crime-laden as the US, but laws are generally much more lenient, and none that I know of have ever even considered things like the "three strikes" laws.

3. Moreover, who's to say, and for what reason, that if I committed a violent crime (armed robbery, say), was convicted, then convicted for burglary of a store with no one in it, and then got caught, say, selling hash, and knew I faced life in prison, I wouldn't try to shoot my way out of an arrest? That's the kind of thinking the law proposed by George Bush Sr. a while back about giving the death penalty to drug kingpins inspired. It's entirely likely that three strikes laws would not only not decrease crime, but that they'd increase the amount of violent crime, especially involving police, informers, or accomplices.

Just saying, according to adams, markets immediately fill the gap of demand - when it's oil from the mideast - or never fill the gap of demand - when it's the fruits of criminal activity. Stolen goods, including money, aren't fungible, and mideast oil is. Etc.

4. Of course, it betrays Adams' bias against the poor. No white collar criminal - they're the source of all the significant crime - is going to be affected, and no criminal corporation. Because three strikes laws are so unconstitutional, they will cause the cases that do go through to be hard and expensively fought, so people like Adams can point to how the retail criminals are costing us money in the courts. It's like saying getting rid of high judgements on torts by people against corporations will save money on health and other insurance, and court costs. Most of the court judgements, most of the money, most of the time in billable hours, is by corporations suing each other and people. In his panels on oil and funding terrorists, of course he's not going to mention that the current vice president is a funder of terrorism and derailed legislation that would have enabled tracking of terrorist funding - after 9/11! It also betrays how someone with very little education and awareness like Scott Adams can think he's a genius and a polymath simply because he's wealthy.

Is it obvious how completely full of it he is?

But here's where I wrap up. Scott Adams did not get rich by following his own economic theories. If he had, the minute Enron folded he would have said, okay, i can never invest in anything to do with energy again. that'd be thinking the ludicrous idea that someone else will do the energy trading Enron did! When WorldCom filed for bankruptcy, that would be it for telephone activity, which would have been depressed by exactly WorldCom's market share until it re-established itself as MCI.

Scott Adams got rich by finding his niche and doing what he was good at. So did Jim Davis, of Garfield fame - a brilliant marketer, but not a great cartoonist. He got nearly as rich, or as rich, as Adams. Adams caught the zeitgeist in American offices of the 80s and 90s. He's a good three-panel cartoonist. That's what he's competent at. If you want to emulate him, do what he did, not what he says. Don't disdain buying a fuel-efficient car because you're too ignorant to know why you should do so. Educate yourself. Don't assume Draconian and disproportional punishment actually prevents crime. Study up yourself and see how it actually works. Just as MicroSoft the OS maker depended on MicroSoft's real abilities, making strategic alliances, cornering markets, imitating the R&D of others and leveraging monopolies, Adams the pundit rests on Adams the cartoonist. Here, Adams the pundit is being so stupid it ruins the work of the real breadwinner.

This is very reminiscent of how the "developing nations" actually developed. They noticed that both the United States and Britain used trade barriers and tariffs to develop. Later, those two nations said to their own and other people that free trade and capitalist ethics and entrepreneurship and freedom and ingenuity were what caused them to grow rich. The developing nations also noticed that the Soviet command economy recovered extremely quickly from the second World War, without Marshall Plan aid. Therefore, most of them adopted barriers, tariffs, AND economic coordination by the government, and they prospered. They also noticed that the Soviet model degraded after a while and so they had limited periods of economic authoritarianism.

By focusing on how things really work, not by how the successful presented themselves, they prospered.

If you reacted to one of Adams' cartoons or books with the feeling that someone who wasn't as clued in as you are was condescending to you, you were probably right.

[NOTE, this is something of a skeleton, as soon as i can scan the relevant cartoon bits and text from The Dilbert Future in to it, I will].

How Capitalism Makes You Stupid #1: Scott Adams is Either a Moron or a Liar

2006-02-19T22:22:00.000-08:00

Because either capitalism has made HIM stupid, or he's selling you dubious right-wing conventional wisdom and making YOU stupid if you believe it.

Sunday's color Dilbert:

Dilbert: I'm thinking about buying a more fuel efficient car.

Dogbert: Why?

Dilbert: It's my patriotic duty to reduce this country's dependence on foreign sources of oil.

Dogbert: Why?

Dilbert: Because then the countries that hate us will have less money to fund terrorists.

Dogbert: Actually, developing countries would buy the oil you saved, thus adequately funding those same terrorists.

Dilbert: At least I wouldn't be funding them myself.

Dogbert: Actually money is a fungible commodity. The capitalist system virtually guarantees that you'll end up buying the lowest cost oil from sources unknown to you.

Dilbert: Well, maybe, but I want my car to make a statement.

Dogbert: And the statement would be "Hey, everyone, I don't know what fungible means!"

I will spot Adams it being a truism that you can't avoid buying oil from a certain source if they're all selling to a common pool of middlemen (hence, the word "commodity" is all important. The word "fungible," meaning exchangeable or replaceable, applies to oil to a considerable degree, both in terms of it being convertible to other energy and materials sources, and to a deficit in one energy source being made up by another, but it's not nearly as fungible as, say, money, whose only raison d'etre is fungibility. Any product - here, a resource - which is sold as a pooled commodity through the same middlemen is indeed impossible to separate out as a purchaser - one reason "voting with your dollars" can NEVER be a complete solution to social problems. By the way, Libyan sweet crude is not exchanged for lower quality Saudi oil, both are sold to brokers and thence to refiners, unless the refiners own the oil, and the entire production is blended in the market).

Step back and look at what Adams is saying: That if the United States didn't buy foreign oil, it wouldn't make the least bit of difference to the "countries that hate us" (many of which the American government call our allies) that "fund terrorists" (presumably including the US, an oil producing nation which funded terrorism in Cuba and Nicaragua and directly and through aid to Pakistan funded the Taliban and Al Qaeda). Beyond doubt, oil being the most useful form of energy now in existence, it's not like people will follow the lead of the US if it gives up oil. But how many people with even a high-school knowledge of economics believe that if the United States went from being the premier consumer of MidEast oil (let's assume that's what Adams means) to being a total nonconsumer, that the profits flowing into net oil-exporting nations wouldn't change? Or the implication that the countries that hate us pretty much openly have this fund earmarked "Terrorism" and it has budgetary needs that are open and easy to discern, and that funding this budgetary item would swim right along even if the demand for oil from the American side went down drastically or ceased altogether? In point of fact, Al Qaeda wants to overthrow the House of Saud and Hosni Mubarak and was trying to bring down Saddam Hussein. The terrorists get their money mostly through blackmail and kidnapping, although some of the spoiled members of the ruling class do kick in voluntarily out of their own enormous fortunes.

Taking for granted what Adams is assuming, that oil is bought on a market by actors in various nations, clearly it's being allocated on a supply and demand basis (of course, that's simplistic with a limited resource overseen by cartels, often pre-bought on long-year terms by refiners, etc. etc., but it's clearly what Adams means - and thinks other people don't understand). There must be some good reason why China, for instance, doesn't simply outbid the United States every time, whatever it takes, and use every drop pumped out of the MidEast every year. Of course, the truth is that the supply of oil can't increase forever, and the demand looks more robust than the supply, so prices should indeed rise over time. Therefore, if the natural increase is enough to offset the lack of the current greatest source of demand, then profits should indeed be adequate for "the nations that hate us to fund terrorists." Of course, if there's US demand that's equal to or greater than current demand, that will simply increase the profits of the evil nations all the more. That's the flip side of a commodity market, and the part Adams is too stupid to grasp. While you can't reduce the profits of a point net exporter of oil, (it's similar to the idea that you can "spot reduce" through exercise), by reducing overall demand (and again, what Adams is too moronic to grasp is that a more fuel-efficient car performs the same economic activities the less fuel-efficient car performed, so there's no competitive advantage to China, India, etc. from the loss of demand on the American side).

A more fuel-efficient car makes many statements - you believe in and understand science, including climatology and thermodynamics, at least enough to reap their benefits. You understand basic microeconomics and perhaps macroeconomics enough not to be holding to a ludicrous position on fuel usage. Clearly, nations that are more energy efficient will have a huge advantage over those that aren't, including selling the ability to be that way to them. Energy efficiency, really, IS economic efficiency, or close enough, since the bottom line of economic efficiency is maximum profit from a set pool of resources.

But I am going out on a limb here not just because this is so much hand-waving by Adams (yes, it's just a cartoon, but his success as a cartoonist has led Adams to try his hand at punditry and that makes his "reasoning" fair game wherever it manifests).

In the second part of this post, I will point out that what Adams is saying here directly contradicts something he maintained in The Dilbert Future, which managed to err just as strongly but in the dead opposite direction. Here, he suggests demand is inelastic and always higher than supply for oil and that any actor who reduces will be like a person hauling a boat out of the water - it will just close in over where the boat was, leaving no trace.

He maintained QUITE ANOTHER REALITY when it comes to Draconian statutes such as the "three strikes" laws, as you'll see. I'll wrap up by explaining why an ultrarich, ultrasuccessful cartoonist can still be EITHER a moron or a liar talking about economics.

Quick note on editing

2006-02-19T15:03:00.000-08:00

I post very rapidly, hence the long sentences and lack of links. As I get the ambition, i go back and put links in, but I rarely see a justification for making my weblog posts more readable. Usually, even for a "timeless" specialty blog, events have moved on, or I have. If anything, I simply resolve to get closer to inverted pyramid style.

The long rambling sentences will probably stay, but I will try to provide hypertext link context for all the concepts, names and events I refer to. and I'll try to make the first rambling sentence count, so busy people won't have any need to read the rest.

I have some experience as a workaday reporter, both daily and weekly, in both print and radio, and I wouldn't turn these weblog posts in as stories or even op-eds, and I wouldn't collect them in a book, either, without rewriting every one of them.

A limited defense of religious faith

2006-02-19T13:18:00.000-08:00

The Libertarian mantra of "fiscally conservative, socially liberal", which is false on both accounts - viz. the "socially liberal" defense of the right of the Klan and Nazis to march through Skokie* or the "fiscally conservative" idea that even if you can get more for your money with some social spending and foreign aid in terms of domestic tranquility and peace abroad, the objective of cops, courts and the military, it's always unacceptable, whereas spending your society into a hole you'll have to tax yourself out of someday on corrupt military contracts and excessive cop and court facilities because Big Business wants it is mandatory, has infected the Democrats, liberals and progressives of America.

One of the things we can all agree on, as we bash Islam across the world, as we hunt through the Quran and hadith and the rantings of the worst representatives of the Moslem faith we can possibly find, ignoring the glorification of genocide, bizarrely violent and stupid customs and folk beliefs, and paradigm xenophobia, racism and religious bigotry you can find in the Torah, Talmud, disregarding the psychotically bigoted HaTanya, ignoring the writings of the founder of Lutheranism, ignoring centuries of hate-filled edicts from the Catholic Church, and so on, and the history of American Protestant fanaticism from the witch hangings through the Great Awakening up to our present theocracy, one thing we can agree on is that it does not matter because, really, "all religion is the problem."

First of all, I suspect that's often a dodge to hide Judeo-Christian chauvinism, given the polls that show a large majority of Americans - 80-85% at least - are believing Christians or Jews. But that obvious observation aside, let me address those who do think religion is the problem, and perhaps the only thing wrong with Islam is that it takes itself seriously or is extreme or has too low a component of science or is just against Western progress because it's Western. Or something like that.

First of all, the implication that religion or religious faith are of no value I find completely dubious. On balance, it may even make people act better as individuals than they'd be otherwise, and when they act badly as a group, frankly, it's usually mixed in with the usual power and resource games. But even taking religion as a break even thing, there is a tremendous value to the religious perspective.

Since this is, unapologetically, a Science Fiction Weblog, I will cite the Dune series as embodying the concepts here. On the one hand, the various faiths had been synthesized into new shapes (Buddislamists, Zensunnis, and the Orange Catholic faith, which included Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Judaic and Islamic elements), in the case of Buddhislam and Zensunnism, as a way of creating new ethnic enclaves and social cohesion. In the case of the Orange Catholic faith, it was spread by a Missionaria Protectiva controlled by the Bene Gesserit (Well-doers) to seed the various planets with preset religious memes and prophecies that would protect the dominant imperial culture in advance. That, of course, is classical missionary behavior, and the classic function of missionaries of the approved state faith in an imperium.

On the other hand, all of humanity owed its freedom, literally, and probably its existence, to the early crude efforts at a Missionaria Protectiva. The Butlerian Jihad, and I wonder if it's a coincidence that Herbert's is the 2nd such crusade - the first was in Samuel Butler's Erewhon, on behalf of humans against "self-willed" machines - had at its core a rigid division between human and inhuman, and more importantly, between living and dead. Conscious and unconscious. Really aware, and faking it. Because of the fanaticism of faith, the recognition that you have to take at least a few starting ideas as givens and not deconstruct every element of morality, reality and learning, humanity prevailed against machines pretending to be alive, conscious and superior, and their lackeys, who were mostly machine but with human brains. I think that's believable - that you couldn't have gotten a gaggle of Libertarian capitalist rationalist corporatists to go fight the machines. Okay, believable is kind of an understatement here.

I find a lot of the "liberal heroes" of anti-religion really repellent. In particular, people like James Randi, Penn Jillette, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet offend me with their simplistic pseudoscientific style of talking about society, reality, philosophy and religion. Dennett's main contribution so far is a compilation called the Mind's I. I think John Searle simply killed the thrust of that - that there really is no distinction between a human mind and a pattern in a book or a good computer program. You should look up Searle's Chinese Room for the details. I would also point out that Hume was the originator of the notion that the self and awareness are not primary and not even real. Or not as real as a good piece of engineering. And Hume's philosophical goal was justifying the rule of the elites, as Thom Hartmann has pointed out.

I will give Dawkins credit for being a real scientist (I suspect Randi and Jillette of being almost complete scientific ignoramuses, from some of the things they've said about science and the scientific method). And some credit for introducing revolutionary ideas like memes into the language and culture. But the thing about calling yourself a "Bright" is pretty good evidence that Dawkins sucks at relating to actual hominids running around. Sagan, similarly rigid in his anti-religious crusade, would never have made that mistake.

Not long ago, a lot of high-tech moguls from places like Sun and Oracle met to discuss - well - machines taking over and replacing people, and how that was a genuine threat, maybe not in our lifetime but in that of our children or grand-children.

We already are under assault by inhuman entities, not conscious but pretending to be, like the Chinese Room, things that want to displace people, enslave them, destroy them, humble them wherever possible. And they have allies who are making themselves as inhuman as possible. They're called corporations.

More on this later.

*For the record, I support the ACLU, I support the right of people to engage in hateful speech, and I am against hate-crime laws. I just don't claim that that's "socially liberal." It's socially "laissez-faire," but it's balancing absolute rights against the right of people to go about their lives not living in fear and not being hindered by harassment. We can't advocate - really, talk about - assassinating the president because that involves preparing the ground for undermining our democracy. We can't issue death threats (to a degree), because they're reasonably often enough a precursor to violence, so they justify at least putting people under scrutiny and in some cases, punishing them. It's a good question whether Alan Berg would be alive today if the death threats he got had been followed up by legal action. It's not clear enough that the answer is "yes" to make me want to go beyond our current balancing act.

all morons left or right bashing islam over protests: sorry, no love

2006-02-17T03:10:00.000-08:00

[Follow-up, 19/02/2006: The genuinely violent and murderous rioting in Nigeria, which involved violence by the protesters, including the death by immolation of a Christian victim, appears to have been mainly over the rumor that born-again Christian president Olusegun Obasanjo would violate Nigerian law and run for a third term. While religious strife plays a part in Nigeria, the main causes of civil violence there are tribal politics and corruption. Hence, the Western media and anti-democratic rightists like Michelle Malkin are wrong to call this "cartoon rioting" when it was not, mainly. On the other hand, many Moslem groups have called for censorship laws in Denmark which the Danish government should resist completely, and that is, indeed, a call for censorship, and to the degree that they tie it to violent protests, it's calling for the heckler's or mob veto on free speech. None of this weakens the thrust of my argument by very much. As someone who reads and speaks Danish, I follow Danish media a bit, and I have to say, while most people like me read things like Politiken, not tabloids like Ekstra Bladet or Washington Timesian pseudopapers like Jyllands-Posten (ironically, all 3 now owned by the same company!) I haven't certainly read enough of Jyllandsposten to find editorials against free speech, but in its earliest incarnation it supported Mussolini's clamp-down and the Kristallnacht against Jewish businesses and homes.]

On this, the World Socialist Web Site is the only place showing any signs of sanity.

You're siding with those US puppets and allies who SHOOT DOWN PROTESTERS and calling THAT freedom, and you're calling the protests and riots against racist propaganda from a pro-Nazi tabloid CENSORSHIP. Imperialism has warped your values that far. And that cultural rot is the main reason I am doing this weblog. Science fiction is simply a not-covered topic, but I'll have other analyses here - the cultural tropes that serve today's optimates are everywhere.

A campaign is emerging to depict Islam as an inferior culture that is incompatible with “Western values.” There are clear parallels here to the anti-Semitic caricatures that were spread in the 1930s by fascist newspapers such as the Nazi Stürmer. The depiction of Jews as sub-humans served as the ideological preparation for the Holocaust.

Today the systematic defamation of Muslims is being used to prepare public opinion for new wars against countries such as Iran and Syria—wars which will be even more brutal than the Iraq war, and could well involve the use of nuclear weapons.

It is no coincidence that it was the Jyllands-Posten that took up this initiative. The newspaper is notorious for its declarations of support for the Nazis in the 1930s, and has played a key role in Denmark’s recent shift to the right.

With editorial offices in the rural area of Arhus, Jyllands-Posten remained a relatively insignificant provincial newspaper until the beginning of the 1980s. At that time it began an aggressive policy of expansion. It bought up smaller regional and local newspapers and launched a price war with the two established newspapers in the Danish capital—Berlingske Tidende and Politiken—and rapidly built up its circulation to 170,000, becoming the biggest circulation newspaper in the country.

In the 1990s the decidedly conservative paper increasingly developed into a mouthpiece for openly xenophobic, right-wing forces. Nearly a quarter of the editorial board was dismissed, and the quality of the paper sank as its aggressiveness rose.

Shortly before the publication of the Muhammad cartoons, Jyllands-Posten ran a headline reading, “Islam is the Most Belligerent.” The newspaper ran an exposé about an alleged Muslim death-list of Jewish names—until it emerged that the whole thing was a fabrication.

One year ago the editor-in-chief resigned because the newspaper carried a report, in the midst of an election campaign, alleging the systematic abuse of welfare rights by asylum-seekers. The sensational charges were published against his will

and

It is noteworthy that those who have rallied to the defense of the right-wing anti-immigrant newspaper in Denmark that first published the racist cartoons have had little to say about the violence of repressive governments across the Middle East against their own people registering outrage over the widely disseminated insult to their religion.

These ostensible defenders of press freedom instinctively sympathize with the regime of Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, which “defended freedom” by shooting down seven demonstrators. Other deaths were reported in Lebanon, Turkey and Somalia. All but one of those killed were Muslim protesters.

I have a terminal case of "Evil Republican Nostalgia!"

2006-02-10T19:24:00.000-08:00

Admit it, we've all caught it by now. We look back fondly to Ike (who cut his spurs trampling sick, starving crippled veterans begging for the wherewithal, their promised Bonuses, to continue living and feed their families. Who overthrew numerous democracies and installed murder regimes all over the world. Who pledged an unlimited American commitment to preventing Vietnamese independence, including whatever troops would be needed, a blank check that even included the use of nuclear weapons if necessary). We take one look at the Bush administration, and suddenly Eisenhower is washed in the blood of the Lamb, all his sins cleansed, all the stains made pure.

But it doesn't stop there. Goldwater, now, there was a man of principle - not a lackey of the fundie right. A man with the courage to go to Nixon and say it was time to resign. Also, a man who ACTUALLY crafted "Nixon's" Southern strategy AND Reagan's fascist alliance of theocrats and economic royalists. A man who also wanted to use nuclear weapons on the Vietnamese, and on several other peoples. A man who spread arrant nonsense like "Give Red China our UN seat" and "a Republic, not a Democracy" - what Janeane Garofalo has rightly labeled "raw meat for the dopes." Clearly, nonetheless, he'd be too competent, sane and reasonable even to work in Bush's cabinet.

As for Nixon, well, he did have the Huston plan, COINTELPRO, blatant treason in 1968 in Vietnam, a history of ruining lives in the witch-hunts of the 50s, and a complete disregard for the law. But he also went to China, brokered a peace treaty in Vietnam and the beginnings of one in the MidEast, started detente with Russia and created (read, didn't veto) the EPA and put in "liberal" wage and price controls*. And he certainly leveled with the American people in a way W never would do. Nixon was heckled during his entire presidency. W just has people put behind barbed wire everywhere he goes, and for the most part, his feet don't touch the ground. Yes, admit it, we miss Nixon. We'd give our pinkies at least - and our comic book collection - to have Nixon back as president.

Which leads us inevitably to Reagan. One of the most evil and dishonest figures in American history. Pioneered the "vote for me, I'm stupid and mean like you" strategy for turning out the vote. A successful Goldwater with a 10th the brains and integrity. While Nixon and Johnson both put serious dents in the fiscal soundness of the United States, Reagan is the one who decided at some point the economy had to be trashed, so why not be the one to do it, and benefit from it? He stole Nikita Kruschev's thunder by burying America before the pathetic Soviets could. He also joined Nixon in the ranks of private citizens who rode blatant acts of treason to the White House, and didn't stop there, arming everyone from Al Qaida, Saddam Hussein, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah to Somoza's blackshirts and the Idi Amin-like deathsquadocracy that was El Salvador. He inspired the most massive popular protests against any president in history up to that point, by ordinary Americans, not just hippies and radicals, and never obtained more than a mediocre popularity in 8 years in office, depending solely on the skills of his legions of hate mongers and demonizers to triumph through 100% dependence on the politics of personal destruction. But Reagan at least looked sharp and didn't talk (most of the time) as if he needed residential care and a tutor. He concluded fairly serious agreements with Gorbachev and had the good sense to raise taxes nearly every year (payroll taxes first, then income taxes) to make up for his poisonous and fiscally insane tax cuts for the rich that he'd promised them to get enough bribes to float into office. Yes, we miss the Gipper. God help us all.

And I don't even feel bad about missing Bush pere. I mean, left the NRA and said trying to hold Iraq was for morons. Sure, he was a CIA villain of long antiquity, a fake Texan who rode racism into office and was the hands-on man for Reagan's treason. But most of the time, however spacily and with whatever tortured syntax, once you'd parsed a Bush Sr. utterance it usually bore some semblance of a relationship to reality. It's not for nothing that Bush Sr. and his associates are usually referred to as "grownups" in the media. Which only highlights the fact that "grownups" are not what Americans got for their votes or at least the ones that counted. Most of us would CAMPAIGN for Bush Sr. against Jr. if it came to that.

Okay, I am babbling on and on on something that's common knowledge - Bush makes all previous Republican villains look like "Saints and Scholars." But I did all this as a preamble to a really embarrassing secret:

I AM IN FACT NOSTALGIC FOR THE FIRST GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION TERM.

Yes, it's true. I didn't think we could possibly do worse than Cheney's energy scam, 9/11, the clinically, religiously insane John Ashcroft who ordered our national police to ignore terrorism and hunt down prostitutes and marijuana paraphernalia, our brutal emulation of the Soviets in Afghanistan, Hitlerian aggression against Iraq, the Mouth of Sauron, Ari Fleischer, the comic-villain-Count Cagliostro/Fu Manchu figure of Don Rumsfeld, etc. etc.

But we have, haven't we? At least theoretically, we're gearing up to tell Iran and Syria to bring it on. We got rid of Ari and got Scott, which is like being exorcised of a horde of minor imps and getting repossessed by Asmodeus. We got rid of Honest Stupid John Assclown and got a figure right out of Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - Alberto Gonzales - a degenerate hybrid of John Negroponte and - well, and Ari Fleischer. Or Joseph Goebbels. Or Felix Dzerzhezhinsky.

We now have Condaleeza Rice embarrassing us EVERY SINGLE DAY somewhere in the world. John Bolton peeing in the flower pot of the Egyptian ambassador. And somewhere along the way, the GOP decided to drop the figleaf of Rule of Law and declare themselves The Party and the United States a "moderately authoritarian" semi-military kleptocracy just like the ones Dad used to install.

And W himself has become more insufferable, not just every year but every single day. He's reached a critical mass of evil - giving off cancerous rays that wither and destroy everything living within a 100 square mile area around him and promising a devastating and disastrous blowup anytime now.

So there you have it - my Evil Republican Nostalgia Syndrome (ERNS) is terminal. I can't see it going anywhere good from this point. I'll probably look for the political equivalent of Laetrile or monkey glands at this point, as desperation sets in. But if anyone else out there is as bad off as I am, perhaps this will at least serve to let them know they're not alone. So cheer up, already!

*Nixon 's economic policies were nothing to his credit for the most part, but the principle that the government can intervene in the economy BEFORE things become utterly disastrous is a very important one, and Nixon was reinforcing that principle.

A short rebuttal to Hogan's malevolently stupid aphorism

2006-02-10T13:13:00.000-08:00

Science really doesn't exist. Scientific beliefs are either proved wrong, or else they quickly become engineering. Everything else is untested speculation.

The thinking here is that engineering has to work, science can coast without being answerable to failure. Engineering is constrained by reality, science by nothing. Etc.

In the real world, engineers fail all the time. Hence deaths, lawsuits, holdups. They misjudge materials and conditions, cut corners, and have horrific failures every day.

Einstein's Special and General Theories of Relativity, claimed by Hogan to be false, on the other hand, have been tested exhaustively for almost a century now. They've never failed once.

Einstein's General Theory and Special Theory were tested by Gravity Probe A with respect to gravity and speed and time dilation to a tolerance of 70 parts per million, which is very comparable to the best engineering tolerance tests, and by the Cassini satellite test to 20 parts per million. As our measurements become more precise, these tests will only get better and better for relativity.

Generally, science provides more rigorous tests than engineering conditions or Nature can, but in the form of binary pulsar systems nature has provided a test of general relativity which is qualitative instead of quantitative - four different effects of general relativity were all observed. You can assign whatever arbitrarily high probability you wish to that, versus the speculations of the anti-relativity cranks.

Moreover, particle accelerators test relativity every day, unfailingly, so you can't say it's "science" that doesn't have to "fly."

Quick overview and exception noted

2006-02-09T15:03:00.000-08:00

As I diverge ever further and follow more and more by-paths, let me acknowledge that, amongst the market fundamentalism, fetishistic militarism, rank hatred of environmentalists and biologists, imperialist apologism and dismissal of the whole history of "inferior third world cultures", and all the other paraphrenalia, most modern US sci-fi writers have also embraced a limited subset of feminism, in the libertarianesque sense that women can do as much, or nearly, as men.

It's probably not coincidental that the one group they will acknowledge has had a tough time under traditional conservative values is women, given that they're the only "minority" numerous enough to help Republicans keep power. The Republicans Libertarians always support. Always. Despite their pretensions not to be the lap dogs of fundamentalists and reactionaries.

And the feminism I'm talking about is largely the Victorian "men are just dogs" style, a relic of an era when men were regarded as born morally deficient the way women were believed in Christendom to be in the Middle Ages. It's not challenging of patriarchical values (which are based, by the way, not on male dominance but on a mechanism for one tribe, race or religion to beat out another - most of the men driven out to fight and die, with enough left in charge to breed the next generation, and with enemy women and children either converted, enslaved, or exterminated). It's not looking at how "male chauvinism" ties into the capitalist/religious axis, the way Friedrich Engels did. It's "floating out in space" feminism.

And if you really believe "men are just dogs" and can't be expected to behave as well as women, that's very convenient as an excuse for all the closeted gay reactionaries and weekend swingers and adulterers and multiple spouses and sexual harrassment, and so on, isn't it? It might make someone female feel an ego boost to think they're born into the gender that's not "mean" and "piggish" and "oppressive," but it's actually of no help to them whatsoever. Indeed, it's partly a reaction to the resurgence of Victorian anti-male attitudes that drove some working class men to embrace Republicanism.

It's also not coincidental that this discovery of a limited feminist consciousness is occurring just when the fascist right wants us to go on more crusades and imperialist campaigns against the third world, with the Islamic nations as the ostensible target. Arundhati Roy has been content to simply mock this, because it's so absurd, but explanations count, too: Numerous modernizing third world leaders have been destroyed by the colonial powers, and chauvinistic and fascistic regimes put in their place. Women have certainly benefited from technological and social progress, but it's not been the Right that's made that possible, but the Left. Nor has Islam been a chauvinist drag on the societies where it's prominent, for the most part. In fact, they've usually been backward societies where it was a modernizing force. And when predominately Moslem nations have tried to raise up out of fundamentalism and tribalism (Nasser, Qasem, Mossadegh, Sukarno, etc. etc.), "the West" has always trampled them back down. Please recall the degreee to which our current regime courted the Taliban, and the campaign by Reaganites to promote Islamism all over the world to destabilize as many governments as possible.

Nonetheless, as I pointed out in praising Jerry Pournelle's moderate skeptical stance, and praising feminist leaders' comments on sexual harrassment during the Clinton impeachment, personalities and the paths and pressures that lead to results aren't all-important.

The simple fact is, women characters are getting more of a fair shake now in science fiction novels than, in my opinion, at any time in the past. Clearly, with science fiction being far to the right even of our corporate and militarist mass media in general, those women will be "Bush business wives" for the most part - exceptionally conservative, just as Blacks and hispanics must be to be included as people in the new paradigm. Nonetheless, it makes me interested in looking at the demographics and economics of science fiction - has the increase in female POV characters increased opportunity for female writers?

A Diversion: Jerry Pournelle on Hogan on Velikovsky

2006-02-07T22:11:00.000-08:00

Hogan and Velikovsky
By the way, Pournelle wrote this in Spring 2000, and the site he lists, http://www.monadnock.net/fanspaces/hogan, is no longer current. To find similar content, go to jamesphogan.com, and in particular, http://www.jamesphogan.com/jphcommentarchive.shtml and search for everything to do with Velikovsky.

Anyone familiar with Pournelle at all will realize he's one of the people where the oar (wielded for market fundamentalist, economic royalist, and anti-environmentalist reasons) is stuck in at least once per book, and usually once per chapter. And he is definitely writing with friendliness and overall approval of his, on balance, quite conservative* fellow science fiction writer.

Yet, not having a "prove the Bible right" agenda, unlike Velikovsky and Hogan, in my estimation, he therefore also points out which are the strongest reasons for not believing Velikovsky, and he includes voluminous email correspondence including valuable links, from many different sources.

I especially like the end-position Pournelle takes. It's neither "my militia/crank/wingnut/crackpot/Millenarian belief system or it's UN One-World PC disinfo" nor is it the kind of sneering people like James Randi and Penn Jillette specialize in, nor is it formulaic skepticism of the kind exemplified by Martin Gardner and Doug Hofstadter of Scientific American.

I think Pournelle arrived there as a compromise between the harsh opposition he would give a non-science-fiction liberal academic with similar beliefs and showing the amity and support that many science fiction authors have for each other.

If I might make an analogy, many conservatives said feminists during the Clinton impeachment over Monica Lewinsky and, nominally, Paula Jones, suddenly took a much more reasonable attitude towards sexual harassment claims. While it's a fair "gotcha," it's not as important, in the long run, as the fact that so many did in fact arrive at a more rational formulation. I would add that history proved them, not their conservative critics right in the Anita Hill case, back when they were, admittedly, more unreasonable in general, and probably in the Paula Jones case as well. Sometimes the path and political pressures that lead someone to a more rational outlook shouldn't be dwelled upon. Rather, the embracing of reasonableness should be.

In the same vein, it's a pity people like Pournelle and his long-time co-writer Larry Niven couldn't be led to take this kind of thoughtful yet skeptical attitude toward the ideas of people who don't see eye to eye with them on nuclear waste, species extinction, the destruction of habitat, the non-supremacy of market fundamentalism, and a host of other issues. But clear thinking and reasonableness should be praised, not their absence somewhere else pointed out.

I called this link a "diversion," but in fact it replaces quite a lot I would have written about Velikovsky. Pournelle comes out, much as I have, rather close to Henry Bauer's take.

*Taking as examples only his latest posts, he opposes at least in retrospect the economic sanctions on Iraq, which is often a left, not even liberal position. On the other hand, he pushes the utterly false charge that the ACLU and American stores and perhaps George Soros were waging a war on Christmas (Limbaugh and O'Reilly were completely lying - there was no increase in ACLU-assisted suits against public displays of religion or use of public facilities for religious purposes. ACLU assistance to religious people wishing to enjoy the commons legally and constitutionally where there was no overarching establishment of a church but local officials thought there were, continued (and not just one case, as the War on Christmas liars claimed, but in fact, hundreds of such cases). Neither Target nor any other chain store ever told its employees not to say Merry Christmas. The town where they claimed Christmas colors were outlawed had not done so. Etc. He comments on one absurd judge who doesn't believe in punishment as if he were some kind of indicator or norm that a proper law-and-order policy was waning in American justice.

Velikovsky One - Homework

2006-02-07T17:53:00.000-08:00

Books I have read on the Velikovsky controversy:

Worlds in Collision by Emmanuel Velikovsky
Scientists Confront Velikovsky edited by Donald Goldsmith
The Velikovsky Affair by Alfred DeGrazia
Velikovsky Reconsidered by the editors of Pensee magazine
Beyond Velikovsky by Henry Bauer
Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky by Charles Ginenthal

Web encyclopedia entries on Velikovsky:

Books I have read not only on the Velikovsky affair, but the larger issues involved, including those raised in James Hogan's Kicking the Sacred Cow and Tom Bethell's The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science:

Scientific Literacy and The Myth of the Scientific Method by Henry Bauer
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn
Against Method by Paul Feyerabend
Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper
A Skeptical look at Karl Popper article by Scientific American's Martin Gardner

Henry Bauer is here twice for a good reason - Beyond Velikovsky is an application of the approach he advocates taking to the study of science as a process, so you can see, as I did, both the theory and practice. I also approve of his approach of applying reason, common sense and good research to every step of the processes in science, including education, choices of research, career tracks, and the process of filtering out or accepting ideas and paradigms.

Dipping the non-economic oar in: James Hogan's "Kicking the Sacred Cow"

2006-02-07T13:55:00.000-08:00

You can see excerpts of this book, Kicking the Sacred Cow by James P. Hogan, online, and for that reason I will, with one exception, only seriously discuss the excerpted chapters. I feel it's largely subsumed in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science by Tom Bethell, but since Chris Mooney and John Farrell are already analyzing that book, I will make the beginnings of an analysis of Hogan's book, since his only claim to fame is as a relatively popular and successful science fiction author (known mainly for the Giants series), and hence, falls into the area this specialty weblog encompasses.

Both the author's starting statement:

Science really doesn't exist. Scientific beliefs are either proved wrong, or else they quickly become engineering. Everything else is untested speculation.

And the contents:

Humanistic Religion: The Rush to Embrace Darwinism
Of Bangs and Braids: Cosmology's Mathematical Abstractions
Drifting in the Ether: Did Relativity Take A Wrong Turn?
Catastrophe of Ethics: The Case for Taking Velikovsky Seriously
Environmentalist Fantasies: Politics and Ideology Masquerading As Science
Closing Ranks: AIDS Heresy In The Viricentric Universe

tell you a great deal.

My summary would be quite different from Hogan's wannabe aphorism* above. I would say his two actual epistemological rules are (1) The more Biblical theory is always right and (2) the crank is always right. Nothing much else could really explain such a tendentious and one-sided analysis of science.

How this fits into this weblog's specialty: Both Ecco (commenting on 14 signs of fascism in general) and Britt (trying them on for size in the United States of the current era) note the assault on science by the fascist system in favor of traditionalism, theocracy, and corporate interests. Most of my emphasis will be on the "corporate interests" part, but I thought I would start off with one that's mostly traditional and theocratic.

As a background, recently the author has written fiction defending and retelling† Velikovsky's "worlds in collision" theory, so I will start with Hogan's defense of Velikovsky, in my very next post. It's not excerpted in the online preview, but it is in his fiction books, and his comments in various places on the internet.

*The construction of which is a trait he shares with Robert Heinlein, who's the patron saint of science fiction conservatives.

†Much as Orson Scott Card has done with Mormon theology and cosmology. But Card is much more open about promoting Scriptural beliefs about reality as he sees them than Hogan is. Hogan is a committed "back-door" attacker of science, more like the people in the Discovery Institute.

JS Test Post

2006-02-01T18:14:00.000-08:00

This is my re-edited JS sliders and buttons test page.

You can define JavaScript functions in a post:

Or include them in the template, as I did a heavily modified version* of Mike Hall's generic drag.

Draggable

Handle

Draggable by handle

H Slider

V Slider

* And more to come, basically slimming towards the5k.org - type minimalism. I elimated browser detection in favor of function detection, and all browsers seem to have document.documentElement.scrollLeft,scrollTop, etc. window is mutable because that's where variables are stored. Mike Halls' was the most minimal and generic one I found (there is also Dom-Drag and WZ drag drop lib), but not good enough for me. I want something with one-letter variables, no unnecessary objects or tests (for example, the two else statements in my code are unnecessary, as IE won't balk at setting A to undefined B), spaces and tabs and returns stripped, something I could pop into a post. By the way, to make Mike Hall's generic drag into a slider, simply comment out either the x= or y= statements in dragGo . To set bounds, put a min or max or both in the same statements.

Information overload equals pattern recognition

2006-01-30T05:06:00.000-08:00

I was going to try to plot all this out beforehand, Steve Kangas-style. Instead, let's see what bottom up organization provides.

Just as one instance of many, to see what I am talking about, check out "Watch on the Rhine" by John Ringo and Tom Kratman. I suspect, since this novel is so utterly right-wing in tone, that Tom Kratman only has a fascist palette to paint with. After branding all anti-war activists, environmentalists, and social democrats as traitors to humanity, and slathering on the usual market fundamentalist cliches, the afterword to the book says that the "Posleen" (fast-breeding lizard beasts who eat humans) are real, and they're, by implication, Islamic terrorists. Moreover, the treason of the above-listed groups is also all-too-real:

"And should we lose, we will see, or our grandchildren will, the erasure of all that is good in Western Civilization. We cannot afford to lose .... Because side by side with the virtues of Western Civilization are paired vices that may destroy us ... an unwillingness to do the ruthless and violent things we must if we are to survive. ... Perhaps worse than these things, however, the West has nurtured at its breast a set of execrable, vile, treacherous and treasonous villains that seem to seek at every opportunity to do all they can to ensure its destruction."

Let me make a declaration. The authors explain that the central plot device of this book, rejuvenating the SS and giving it back all of its old traditions and honors, is both logical and a pointed reminder of how desparate we are. I would explain it thusly. Kratman, at least, is a modern-day Nazi, and he wants a new fascism without the bad PR the old one had, and with room for Israel (If I have to guess, because she acquitted herself so well helping out the fascist regimes in Guatemala, El Salvador, Argentina and South Africa). Ringo, who writes completely moronic diatribes against environmentalists into his fiction (ala Ayn Rand, they're long-winded monologues filled with half-baked theories, erroneous facts, and specious logic), is probably just someone who thinks that as long as it's against the PC enemy, it's all good.

Nor is this the culmination of some intensive search - it just happens to be the book I read today.

I hope you can see I have my work cut out for me.